Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Scottish Socialist Party United Left

Anon
Notwithstanding the fact that a topic coming up on search results on Google does not represent valid grounds for dismissing the existance of a group (the group's very own website http://www.ssp-ul.org IS linked to within the article), the apparently partisan statement made by the proposed deletor represents an entirely false and misleading statement, given as of 1205 GMT Tuesday 21 June 2006

"SSP UNITED LEFT"

solicits 52 hits and extensive commentary across many reporting platforms on Google.

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=%22ssp+united+left%22&meta=

This also clearly refutes the proposed deletor party politically motivated and non-neutral comments that the group represents "Unremarkable people or groups/Vanity Pages".

The only person that statement would seem to clearly apply to is the proposed deletor.

Moreover, mboverload's time-consuming misuse of deletion proposition represents clear and present grounds for suspension of his Wikipedia membership, which we trust you will review immediately, speedily and decisively.

Furthermore, the article has been written and edited with reference to and in full compliance with Wikipedia content policies.

We do no feel that it is appropriate that attempted censorship should be encouraged or condoned on Wikipedia, because the information contained therein is not shared by or at odds with the politically divergent.

SPEEDY DELETION PROPOSITION

It will be clear from actual reading of the article and it's sources that the importance of the organisation mentioned therein is extensively and indisputably asserted.

As such - the article - containing clear and present value of an important subject and topic and clear assertation of this, does not remotely represent a valid subject for either deletion or speedy deletion.

Furthermore, being written by a number of independent commentators, there is no evidence contained therein (nor supplied by the proposed deletor) that the article represents a vanity article.

Regarding the importance of topic (a proposed Wikipedia policy). Clearly the emergence of a new faction or grouping within one of Scotland's leading left-wing political parties, a party which is in crisis and has been headline news for months does represent clear evidence "that a reasonable number of people are, were or might be concurrently interested in the subject (eg. it is at least well-known in a community)."

While we would dispute the simpicity and objectivity of his argument, the proposed deletor is fond of using the number of google hits a subject gains as being a key, acceptable (if somewhat crude) benchmark of a topic's importance

"scottish socialist party" typed into google, solicits 193,000 results

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=%22scottish+socialist+party%22&meta=

typing "ssp united left" into google

a faction which has emerged within the party (total membership 3000: total faction signatories 150)

solicits 52 results on google after ONLY 8 days of its existance.

I rest my case! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.93.21.106 (talk • contribs).

More anon
Thanks for your support.

While endeavouring to be as objective as I possibly could under the circumstances (which all said, would not necessarily seem to be required in a "please share your thoughts" scenario), my remarks were not intended to be taken as a personal attack, merely an expression of concern regarding what we felt to be inherent in the proposed deletion remarks (and sorry if we were mistaken in this) to be a snipe at a political party and its people.

Since its inception, even a casual glance at the history of the organisation (which we commend Wikipedia in helping to report) it seems clear that - like it or loathe it - the Scottish Socialist Party has been something of a political phenomenon which has achieved a great deal on the Scottish political stage, for the Scottish people, many of them poor, disabled and disadvantaged.

We do not feel that such a group - politically under represented at the political debating table for many years - deserves to be casually described or derided (even unwittingly or accidently) as an unremarkable group of people, nor have the early history of the founding of a completely new network within the party, which includes many important human rights campaigners and leading members of the Scottish Parliament dismissed as vain, or even worse casually deleted from history by Wikipedia.

Not if Wikipedia wishes to truly aim to properly service the accurate, fair and balanced information needs of people worldwide, both today and into the future.

This, we feel, would betray and undermine all the good work that Wikipedia has achieved since its foundation.

We thank you for your continued support in helping bring clarity and level-headedness to this matter and trust you will help continue to keep the beacon of truth alive on the site.

Both ourselves and the previous contributing authors to this entry have invested a great deal of our valuable time and energy in writing and expanding the article (which started off as a stub), which we hope the moderators will respect and contribute to, including assisting protect the entry from any forces of reactionary censorship, both within and without.

Thanks again!

Keep up the good work! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.93.21.106 (talk • contribs).

And more anon
Much as many would like it to be, profit-driven corporations such as Google News are not the arbiters of what is or is not news or newsworthy. What is or is not news is entirely determined in a dynamic, symbiotic relationship between multiple purveyors and myriad consumers of that news.

The fact that any one individual does not regard a topic or issue as news, does not mean it becomes 'un-news' to everyone else. There are MANY web-based stories regarding Scottish Socialist Party United Left (or "SSP United Left" for short).

Including:

1) The networks own statement on their website - http://www.ssp-ul.org/ 2) An article titled "Another view on the SSP crisis" published by Alliance for Workers Liberty - http://www.workersliberty.org/node/6438 3) Precis published on International Viewpoint's website - http://www.internationalviewpoint.org/mot.php3?id_mot=58 4) Link published on Socialist Unity Network's website - http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:oSkGOF3F-AAJ:www.socialistunitynetwork.co.uk/+%22ssp+united+left%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=6&ie=UTF-8 5) An article and considerable comment on SSP United Left on Indymedia Ireland - http://www.indymedia.ie/article/76628?condense_comments=false#comments 6) Comment by a non-SSP political activist on the new faction -http://independentbaillieston.blogspot.com/2006/06/ssp-set-to-split.html 7) Some comedic comment by The Times of London - http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2090-2231149,00.html 8) Comment by an English ecosocialist and trade unionist -http://greenmansoccasional.blogspot.com/2006/06/rash-of-left-founding-statements.html

The fact that ALL of these organisations, people and/or websites do not subscribe a news feed to Google, does not make anything they have to say 'un-news' and represent a lack of coverage, significant or otherwise. Whether a story or happening in the world receives no coverage, little coverage or a lot of coverage is entirely inconsequential.

In the shifting sands of 24/7 news, and in particular the bolting race horse that is 'net news', it doesn't change the fact that that event did happen or continues to happen.

It is worth reminding ourselves too that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. The word encyclopedia - derived from Greek - means "all round education". It is not possible to give people an all round education, by leaving certain segments of the circle out or giving certain angles less prominence than they deserve. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.202.224.62 (talk • contribs).

AHHHH!
Attack of the anons! NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! Get them off, they're biting me and calling me a poopy-head =D --mboverload @ 02:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)