Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Free Scotland Party

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 22:09, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Free Scotland Party

• Delete Seems to be a one-man creation of Brian Nugent who's bio is also up for deletion. I can find no media interest, not independent comment. They contested two seats in the 2005 UK elections and came last with under 200 votes in each. They are planing to contest 3 seats in the forthcoming Scottish elections. Utterly no evidence of notability. Doc^g 22:24, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Political Parties are notable and article can be improved by future editors and de-stubbed. Would suggest that it be included as part of a Wikiproject as a De-Stub Task. Edward Lalone | (Talk) 23:24, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Political parties are notable (and they actually contested 3 seats in 2005, coming 2nd last in one of them). And for media interest, what about this? --Vclaw 23:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

comment Oh come on. Political parties are not inherently notable - they are only notable for what they do. I can start a political party tomorrow in my living room, with all the ease of starting a stamp-collector's club. In the UK you don't have to register. Me and my friend can start one - and not even tell anyone! To contest a seat in a UK election, you only have to pay a £500 deposit to get your name on the ballot paper and you are not obliged campaign, in fact you don't even need to turn up. So, some evidence of notability beyond that is needed. The 'Shetland News' story that you cite, is just a local rag laughing at the person who came last in the local election poll. And read it! It admits that they can't even raise £5,000 to contest the EU elections!!!!! Let's face it - no national newspaper even mentions these people - there is no independent commentary on them. They employ no-one and have no office. They don't even appear to have registered as a charity. They put out a launch release (see their website), and evidently, the media ignored it. So should we. Absolutely no evidence of notability whatsoever.--Doc^g 23:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems that you have taken note of the Free Scotland Party. How did you come across this article if it is not notable? It seems to me that if it is notable enough to receive attention from you and to be nominated for deletion that it should be given the benefit of doubt, and also its not Wikipedia's editors responsibility to determine what is and isn't notable enough based on our subjective judgments. Wikipedia policy states, "Notability is not judged by Wikipedia editors directly. The inclusion of topics on Wikipedia is a reflection of whether those topics have been included in reliable published works. Other authors, scholars, or journalists have decided whether to give attention to a topic, and in their expertise have researched and checked the information about it. Thus, the primary notability criterion is a way to determine whether "the world" has judged a topic to be notable. This is unrelated to whether a Wikipedia editor personally finds the subject remarkable or worthy." It is clear that most people in the world find political parties to be notable enough and some actually vote based on the political party. Inherently, we do not decide which political party is notable and which is not because that is a subjective opinion and judgment while deciding that political parties warrant attention is not subjective. To give attention to one political party in Scotland because we subjectively believe it is notable while ignoring another because we subjectively believe it isn't is a violation of Neutrality. Edward Lalone | (Talk) 01:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Woah, how I came across it is hardly relevant. Maybe I hit special:random. Your arguement is 'if it is notable enough for me to nominate it, then we should keep it???' My point is not that I find it unremarkable (or else I'd be nominating pokemon articles!) my point is that journalists and third party sources find THIS political party not worthy of mention. Objectively, we can say that this party is not being noted. For goodness sake, your arguments are ridiculous.--Doc^g 02:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Your choice to misinterpret my argument is laughable. I did not make the argument that if its notable enough for you to nominate it than we should keep it. My point what that if you took the time to nominate it as well as to take a position on the deletion of an article about a Free Scotland Party candidate that it should be given the benefit of the doubt. Which is not to say that we should keep it. Also, let's look at your claim that it needs to be newsworthy to be notable. This isn't consistent with Wikipedia policy that a topic does not have to be newsworthy to be considered notable. Also, I consider your arguments to be just as ridiculous consider your arguments to be subjective and based on whether the topic is newsworthy when newsworthiness has no bearing on whether a topic is notable. Edward Lalone | (Talk) 02:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment "If that article's notable surely this one is" isn't a consideration in an AfD nomination. Wikipedia is just too large to tackle all non-notable articles at once. Notability is an objective criterion based on the amount (both quantity and duration) of attention a subject has received in independent, reliable sources. Flakeloaf 01:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

That is the opinion of editors such as yourself but I do not recognize it as a valid premise to determine what is clearly a subjective decision based on whether an article should or shouldn't be included. It gives people with a POV the opportunity to prevent the inclusion of articles they disagree with on topics they do not want to be focused on because they can always say (subjectively) that an article has not receive enough third party attention. This is why Wikipedia has taken the position that an article doesn't have to be newsworthy to be notable. I concur with your assessment about notability having to be based on objectivity but its clear here that objectivity isn't the standard being used to determine the notability of a political party (i.e., it's not as major of a party as mine and people who write for news agencies that are members of my party have not condescended to write about this minor party that I want to make sure doesn't receive notice). The fact is that 99% of people consider political parties in countries dominated by them to be notable. It is shameful when non-members of those parties refuse to write articles about them or to give them attention and we shouldn't feed their insanity. Edward Lalone | (Talk) 02:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Just because the concept of political parties is notable does not mean every party in the world is notable. For example, I'm the leader of the Bean-with-Bacon Party, but I'd hardly call it a notable group. Our best showing was when a candidate we fielded came in sixth out of a field of eight in the elections for high school class president, gaining twelve votes. --Carnildo 01:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Political parties are by no means inherently notable. The fact that this party couldn't even raise £5,000 to compete in European elections demonstrates their lack of notability. Also, the above arguement by Edward is rather circular. If finding an article and nominating it proves notability then nothing could ever get deleted because it would become notable when it was nominated. That is absolutely ridiculous. Edward is right in claiming that notability isn't subjective here, but he is incorrect in his further argument that this indicates that "most people in the world find political parties to be notable." Where is your statistical data that the majority of the world's population considers parties to be inherently notable? We regularly delete articles on political parties here because they don't meet Wikipedia's standards. If the party gets a significant amount of attention from the press and if it gets multiple seats in the legislature then its notable. This party doesn't hold multiple seats in the legislature and doesn't seem to have significant and substantial press coverage. --The Way 01:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

You do what? That is shameful and all editors involved in such deletion should be ashamed of themselves and they are wrong for deleting political parties that the government recognizes and its sad that their POV on how political parties are to be deleted have prevailed and I personally take issue with that POV and object to it and to the deletion of political parties because some editors do not consider them notable. Deleting this article would be inappropriate and if editors such as yourself have behaved like this in the past you should be ashamed of yourself, and if editors such as yourself have used Wikipedia policy in this manner than you should be just as ashamed of yourself. Also, my argument is not circular but yours is ridiculous but I am sure that other arguments made by other editors who agree with your POV are just as ridiculous. To have a requirement about how many seats a political party gets in the legislature as determining whether they are notable is wrong. It has no bearing on whether a political party is notable. What number do you affix. 1, 2, 5, 6, 10, 11, etc? Also, how do you subjectively determine what is a significant amount of attention from the press when Wikipedia has made it clear that newsworthiness is not a criteria in determining whether an article is notable. Edward Lalone | (Talk) 02:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment I'll ignore your personal attacks at myself and at other editors who don't hold your position, though perhaps the closing admin should look into it. Otherwise, Wikipedia has very clear policies on how to establish notability, namely the need for multiple, legitimate third party sources which discuss the article's topic more than just in passing. This article has no third party sources whatsoever. Thus this should be deleted unless such sources are provided. If you don't agree with this policy, that's fine, but this policy is one that determines the outcomes of AfD discussions. If you want to discuss problems with this policy (which will, I might add, get you pretty much nowhere) then feel free to open up a discussion topic on it at the Village Pump related to policy. --The Way 05:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you are wrong. You are referring to WP:N which is a guideline not a policy. Guidelines are their to indicate what we tend agree in debates, and to inform those participating in this debate. Guidelines do NOT "determine the outcome of AfD discussion" - consensus does that. Since the existence of this party is verifiable (and WP:V IS policy), then consensus is what counts. The guideline may help us to form a consensus, but if the was a consensus to keep this, then it would get kept.--Doc^g 09:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• Merge with 2007 Scottish Parliamentary elections. Their showing at the most recent election was noticed by several independent, reliable sources for a moment, but newsworthiness does not necessarily translate to notability. Flakeloaf 01:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually there showing was not noted by independent sources - most of the sources were just recording the numbers in the election. I can find none that have passed comment on the party, other than the Shetland Times's shaggy dog story on 'guess who came last in the local poll'.--Doc^g 02:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

There are hundreds of articles about minor political parties on Wikipedia and none of them should be deleted because of some erroneous belief that a Party needs to be newsworthy to be included when Wikipedia policy makes it clear that this is not a standard to determine whether an article on a topic is to be included here. It's completely inappropriate to delete such articles simply because editors subjectively believe that they aren't notable. Edward Lalone | (Talk) 02:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Flakeloaf that the article could possibly be merged into the 2007 Scottish Parliamentary elections but I am concerned with that approach too. There are numerous articles about American Political Parties that have received little or no news attention that would have to be merged and this would create unnecessary merged articles. Edward Lalone | (Talk) 02:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• Ref Doc Glasgow's comment at 23.54: is is necessary to register a political party with the UK Electoral Commission in order for the party's name and insignia to appear on the ballot paper. (See Registration of Political Parties Act 1998.) This party appears to have done so. In the spirit of WP:C&E, if the party were to field candidates (plural) at the Holyrood election, I think that would pass muster as a notable party. For now, merge and redirect to 2007 Scottish Parliament elections. Eludium-q36 11:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
• Additional to the above, candidates need to be nominated, seconded and supported, the total number depending on the type of election (for Parliament and local council, 10), so you can't just declare yourself a party and stand. I'm in two minds about this one: I don't know enough about Scottish politics, so will abstain. Emeraude 13:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete From their party accounts it appears that they have single figure membership. There are scores of political parties in the UK. Most of them are not listed on Wikipedia. Finally, the only referenced bit of material (the child assault) keeps being removed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.154.108.244 (talk) 20:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC).
• Delete per nom, and others. --Mais oui! 13:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable. --Ben MacDui (Talk) 19:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, what with there are no non-trivial reports on the party in the national press. Indeed, I can't find a single mention in the Herald or the Scotsman (but that might be incompetence on my part). Mere existence might qualify for inclusion in a directory, but Wikipedia is an enyclopedia. There's a certain amount of WP:NFT-ness here, and the faintest hint of WP:COI and the like into the bargain. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

What a surprise, the Glasgow Herald and the Scotsman failing to acknowledge anything outside the Central Belt (or just taking the piss) - BTW you missed this mention. And yes, there is a definite conflict of interest here, with the SNP fans trying to destroy anything that opposes their viewpoint. -- Charlie 01:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

The column you refer to states At the last count, the Scottish Party had one member - Brian - raising the interesting possibility that he has had a schism with himself. Q.E.D. (And btw, please assume good faith and don't impute motives to people. I nominated this for deletion and I'm a raging unionist ;) )--Doc^g 01:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.