![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 17 September 2008. The result of the discussion was Delete. |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 8 February 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
![]() | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion review on 2 February 2009. The result of the discussion was Recreate. |
The article as it currently stands is:
Hence my templating the article for these issues. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 15:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Rubbish. You are simply backing up your spurious arguments in the ongoing AfD debate, which has yet to decide if ANY wiki policy is infringed, so your tagging of the article is both premature and disruptive.
1. This is not "solely a "long and sprawling lists of statistics"" and neither is it "confusing to readers".
2. WP:PRIMARY actually says this: "Our policy: Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them." It goes on: "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation". There is no interpretation of the sources, hence no need for secondary sources.
What you also fail to take into account is that this is not a stand-alone article in any case. It is and was created as a split from the British National Party article, an article that is already very large, and is linked from the section there on electoral performance and which itself links back there. Emeraude ( talk) 18:18, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Unsurprisingly, the AfD on this article has resulted as 'no consensus'. There was however a widespread opinion that its current contents are in violation of WP:NOT#STATS. I would therefore suggest removing the "long and sprawling lists of statistics [that] may be confusing to readers and reduce the readability and neatness of our articles" to talk until such time as "sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader" can be found.
Given that, other than the "lists of statistics", the only contents of the article is the sentence introducing these lists, the question would then be, what to use as a placeholder in the meantime? The options would appear to be:
Opinions? Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 13:01, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 00:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 03:08, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 06:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
With all this "discussion" I notice that nothing has changed. With all the effort put into trying to get this article deleted or to keep it here this could have been transformed into a featured article. In 30 minutes I have made a big step towards writing sufficiently explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader.
By the way, for those that despise the BNP:
Did you know...
I read a Nick Griffin blog recently and he wrote of 'combating Wikipedia lies'. Would he be so concerned about this site if you guys got your way and had "THE BNP ARE A BUNCH OF NAZIS WHO WILL NEVER GET ELECTED BECAUSE THEY ARE BAD PEOPLE. I HAVE MY FINGERS IN THE EARS SO CAN'T HEAR YOU... YET CAN SOMEHOW TYPE... LALALALALA!!!!"?
Probably not. People would be less likely to use Wikipedia though, they'd probably look for other sites to get their information on the BNP from, such as 'bnp.org.uk' for example. Sort yourselves out.-- EchetusXe ( talk) 14:50, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Actually, you are wrong to "notice that nothing has changed". For a start, the results tables have been tweaked to allow sorting. An introductory summary table has also been added. You will notice that BrownHairedGirl and myself have promised to incorporate suggestions into the article from the debate. The 30 minutes you spent writing explanatory text is much appreciated and a step forward; however, none of your words is backed up by suitable references - a serious weakness which I hope you will correct. And some of what you say is confusing if not actually wrong. (For example, "Since 9/11 the issue of Islamic terrorism, combined with a post-war increase in immigration" needs rephrasing to give some sort of chronological sense; "... great success for the party in local elections" - hardly!; "quadrupling their votes in the general election from 2001 to 2005" - only by quadrupling the number of candidates - votes per candidate increased by only 13%; "Nick Griffin, who was considered to hold less extreme political views" - by whom?)
Your comments about those that despise the BNP are aimed at who exactly? And what is the point of them in this location? Emeraude ( talk) 15:37, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
WHO THE HELL HAS F**KING DELETED THE CONFIRMED CANDIDATES FOR THE 2010 GENERAL ELECTION?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????/ I NEEDED THAT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! YOU NEEDED THAT!!! BRING BACK NOW YOU F**KING C**TS!!!!
I WILL SMASH YOUR FACES UP GOOD!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.80.178.253 ( talk) 16:18, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Why will you not accept the European elections nor the London Assembly results on here? Unsigned comment by NatDemUK ( talk) 15:27, 20 April 2010
Please sign your conributions to discussion pages. The page was designed for UK national elections; later Welsh and Scottish were added as the elections can be regarded as national there. The London Assembly is no more important than any other local council election and to include all of them would make the page unbearably long and unwieldy. As for European Parliament elections and the BNP, I would suggest the topic possibly deserves its own page; given the convoluted counting method used in these elections it would not be easy to integrate results into the format used here. It could also be argued that the topic is not sufficiently large to merit a page, being adequately covered by the various artricles on the EP elections. Emeraude ( talk) 11:28, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
For the vast majority of the candidates, the original entry was in the form of initial followed by surname. In the case of women, the title Miss, Mrs or Ms was included. This accurately refelected the sources. The addition of first names for a large number of candidates, while very likely accurate (except where abbreviated names have been used) is totally unsourced and certainly not verifiable from the sources given. Should first names be removed? Is there an issue here? Emeraude ( talk) 11:59, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
"Despite a great sense of Scottish national identity in the country, in the 2003 Scottish Parliament election, the BNP only stood one candidate, Peter Appleby[26], in the Glasgow electoral region who obtained 2,344 votes (1.1%) but in the 2007 Scottish Parliament election the BNP competed in all the Scottish Parliamentary electoral regions. The Scottish National Party won the election, the BNP achieved 1.2% of the vote and finished seventh."
What's this supposed to mean? Scottish identity and the BNP are often opposed. Unless this is some attempt to link the SNP and the BNP opn a name basis.-- MacRusgail ( talk) 19:18, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Since this page was created, various editors have added individual candidates' first names, generally without citing a reference. In most cases, the information for a particular election is referenced to a results table published by a national newspaper or similar source which does not give the first name but just an initial. This can be taken as accurate and backed by a reliable source. Altering this to show a first name is not backed up in this way. This is not to question the good faith of editors who have made these changes nor, indeed, their accuracy, but there is obviously considerable scope for error and even mischief! I am therefore going to revert all such instances to initials only unless the sources say otherwise. It does, though, seem reasonable to include first names for those candidates who also have Wikipedia articles, since their candidature ought to be referenced on those pages. The alternative is to reference every single individual instance of a first name but, if the sources are happy with just initials I don't see the point. Apart from anything else, we will end up with references taking up more space than the article itself. Emeraude ( talk) 15:05, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on British National Party election results. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:54, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 17 September 2008. The result of the discussion was Delete. |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 8 February 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
![]() | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion review on 2 February 2009. The result of the discussion was Recreate. |
The article as it currently stands is:
Hence my templating the article for these issues. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 15:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Rubbish. You are simply backing up your spurious arguments in the ongoing AfD debate, which has yet to decide if ANY wiki policy is infringed, so your tagging of the article is both premature and disruptive.
1. This is not "solely a "long and sprawling lists of statistics"" and neither is it "confusing to readers".
2. WP:PRIMARY actually says this: "Our policy: Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them." It goes on: "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation". There is no interpretation of the sources, hence no need for secondary sources.
What you also fail to take into account is that this is not a stand-alone article in any case. It is and was created as a split from the British National Party article, an article that is already very large, and is linked from the section there on electoral performance and which itself links back there. Emeraude ( talk) 18:18, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Unsurprisingly, the AfD on this article has resulted as 'no consensus'. There was however a widespread opinion that its current contents are in violation of WP:NOT#STATS. I would therefore suggest removing the "long and sprawling lists of statistics [that] may be confusing to readers and reduce the readability and neatness of our articles" to talk until such time as "sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader" can be found.
Given that, other than the "lists of statistics", the only contents of the article is the sentence introducing these lists, the question would then be, what to use as a placeholder in the meantime? The options would appear to be:
Opinions? Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 13:01, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 00:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 03:08, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 06:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
With all this "discussion" I notice that nothing has changed. With all the effort put into trying to get this article deleted or to keep it here this could have been transformed into a featured article. In 30 minutes I have made a big step towards writing sufficiently explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader.
By the way, for those that despise the BNP:
Did you know...
I read a Nick Griffin blog recently and he wrote of 'combating Wikipedia lies'. Would he be so concerned about this site if you guys got your way and had "THE BNP ARE A BUNCH OF NAZIS WHO WILL NEVER GET ELECTED BECAUSE THEY ARE BAD PEOPLE. I HAVE MY FINGERS IN THE EARS SO CAN'T HEAR YOU... YET CAN SOMEHOW TYPE... LALALALALA!!!!"?
Probably not. People would be less likely to use Wikipedia though, they'd probably look for other sites to get their information on the BNP from, such as 'bnp.org.uk' for example. Sort yourselves out.-- EchetusXe ( talk) 14:50, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Actually, you are wrong to "notice that nothing has changed". For a start, the results tables have been tweaked to allow sorting. An introductory summary table has also been added. You will notice that BrownHairedGirl and myself have promised to incorporate suggestions into the article from the debate. The 30 minutes you spent writing explanatory text is much appreciated and a step forward; however, none of your words is backed up by suitable references - a serious weakness which I hope you will correct. And some of what you say is confusing if not actually wrong. (For example, "Since 9/11 the issue of Islamic terrorism, combined with a post-war increase in immigration" needs rephrasing to give some sort of chronological sense; "... great success for the party in local elections" - hardly!; "quadrupling their votes in the general election from 2001 to 2005" - only by quadrupling the number of candidates - votes per candidate increased by only 13%; "Nick Griffin, who was considered to hold less extreme political views" - by whom?)
Your comments about those that despise the BNP are aimed at who exactly? And what is the point of them in this location? Emeraude ( talk) 15:37, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
WHO THE HELL HAS F**KING DELETED THE CONFIRMED CANDIDATES FOR THE 2010 GENERAL ELECTION?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????/ I NEEDED THAT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! YOU NEEDED THAT!!! BRING BACK NOW YOU F**KING C**TS!!!!
I WILL SMASH YOUR FACES UP GOOD!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.80.178.253 ( talk) 16:18, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Why will you not accept the European elections nor the London Assembly results on here? Unsigned comment by NatDemUK ( talk) 15:27, 20 April 2010
Please sign your conributions to discussion pages. The page was designed for UK national elections; later Welsh and Scottish were added as the elections can be regarded as national there. The London Assembly is no more important than any other local council election and to include all of them would make the page unbearably long and unwieldy. As for European Parliament elections and the BNP, I would suggest the topic possibly deserves its own page; given the convoluted counting method used in these elections it would not be easy to integrate results into the format used here. It could also be argued that the topic is not sufficiently large to merit a page, being adequately covered by the various artricles on the EP elections. Emeraude ( talk) 11:28, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
For the vast majority of the candidates, the original entry was in the form of initial followed by surname. In the case of women, the title Miss, Mrs or Ms was included. This accurately refelected the sources. The addition of first names for a large number of candidates, while very likely accurate (except where abbreviated names have been used) is totally unsourced and certainly not verifiable from the sources given. Should first names be removed? Is there an issue here? Emeraude ( talk) 11:59, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
"Despite a great sense of Scottish national identity in the country, in the 2003 Scottish Parliament election, the BNP only stood one candidate, Peter Appleby[26], in the Glasgow electoral region who obtained 2,344 votes (1.1%) but in the 2007 Scottish Parliament election the BNP competed in all the Scottish Parliamentary electoral regions. The Scottish National Party won the election, the BNP achieved 1.2% of the vote and finished seventh."
What's this supposed to mean? Scottish identity and the BNP are often opposed. Unless this is some attempt to link the SNP and the BNP opn a name basis.-- MacRusgail ( talk) 19:18, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Since this page was created, various editors have added individual candidates' first names, generally without citing a reference. In most cases, the information for a particular election is referenced to a results table published by a national newspaper or similar source which does not give the first name but just an initial. This can be taken as accurate and backed by a reliable source. Altering this to show a first name is not backed up in this way. This is not to question the good faith of editors who have made these changes nor, indeed, their accuracy, but there is obviously considerable scope for error and even mischief! I am therefore going to revert all such instances to initials only unless the sources say otherwise. It does, though, seem reasonable to include first names for those candidates who also have Wikipedia articles, since their candidature ought to be referenced on those pages. The alternative is to reference every single individual instance of a first name but, if the sources are happy with just initials I don't see the point. Apart from anything else, we will end up with references taking up more space than the article itself. Emeraude ( talk) 15:05, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on British National Party election results. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:54, 26 July 2017 (UTC)