I'm not sure whether being officially registered isn't enough claim to notability in SOME countries. While it's apparently very easy to register as a party in the UK, it's a lot harder in other countries, and having successfully registered may alone be a certain claim to notability -- on the other hand, those parties which do manage to do that would usually achieve notability through some other clause, as well, I expect.
Another point is how successful a party has to be at contesting elections -- a party which achieves even half a percent may be notable in some countries (like Austria) which have a very rigid party system, i.e. where even 0.5% of the vote can be a substantial vote of confidence for completely new parties.
Just my first €0.02. — Nightstallion 19:12, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
This seems like a good start to me. Criterion 3 (history) is pretty vague, but I suppose that's the point - it's impossible to give a strict definition of 'an indisputable, clear, and certain importance in a nation's cultural/social history', but it should most of the time be clear whether or not it applies. The rest are all fairly reasonable, but here are a few points worth considering in more detail:
Overall though, I think this looks good, and would support making it a draft policy. (The examples I gave all come from Category:Political parties in the United Kingdom, which once this policy has been worked out, would be a good place to start applying it.) Terraxos ( talk) 19:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I think what we need to admit here is that political parties have a very differnt dynamic than other social and economic organizations. A very small party should not be compared with a very small company. A local pizzeria with 4-5 employees is not notable, but a very numerically small political organization can still have some degree of notability. We need to separate between between hoaxes/spoofs/jokes on one hand and serious organizations on the other. -- Soman ( talk) 21:11, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi, doktorb: thanks for the message. Hmmm...I agree with your suggestions, but they'll need rewording, especially the history clause. You'll also need an eternity clause.
So the reworded version looks like this:
Hope that helps, Anameofmyveryown ( talk) 00:56, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Just getting ready for work now, so when I get back tonight I will take a look at the other feedback here, and edit the policy for the first time with the collected opinions and whatever other thoughts. I think we could have a draft policy within a couple of weeks doktorb words deeds 05:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't think we need specifc criteria about parties, but if we decide differently I will support Soktorburk's suggestions. Anyway a few parties will not fit one of the five clauses proposed by Doktorbuk and few articles will be deleted on the new rules. Regarding Italy, the country where I live, I wouldn't oppose the deletion of articles about parties such as the National Democratic Party (Italy), Italy Again, Moderate Italy, United Pensioners and many other small parties whose articles are available at Category:Political parties in Italy or in Template:Italian political parties in 2007. Would you agree? -- Checco ( talk) 15:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
For New Zealand we seem to have a policy that if a party was registered, applied for broadcasting funding or ran candidates (even unsuccessfully) it is notable enough for inclusion. But we have less than two dozen parties active at any one time (with five or six appearing and disappearing at each election), so its relatively easy to keep track of. IdiotSavant ( talk) 11:45, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
@Nightstallion: Do you agree on the fact that, under the new rules, some of the articles about Italian political parties you created should be deleted? -- Checco ( talk) 13:59, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
As I see it now...
* This is my suggestion - if it can be proven that a party has been going for 2 years, with campaigning and/or electoral activity, without success, then I think that is enough proven work for our purposes.
doktorb words deeds 16:27, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
What is sure is that these rules are not tight and, maybe, that's good! However IWCA should be definitely included, even if this means that almost no article about an Italian party is up to deletion. In the end, I continue to think that we don't need any rules, especially if they are so loose. -- Checco ( talk) 10:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Looks like I'm rather late to the discussion here, but I really like doktorb's proposed clause 1 ("democratic representation") and 2 ("enduring activity"). How can we define active? We need evidence that they have undertaken genuine activity. I suggest that evidence a party has issued publications, stood in elections or retained elected representatives in any democratic body over a period of a minimum of two years would qualify. Maintaining a website or remaining a registered party in a state where there are no requirements for a minimum level of support or activity would not suffice. A minimum number of candidates may not be the answer - some parties, mostly on the far left, do not prioritise electoral activity, and may instead churn out large amounts of propaganda and primarily be active in trade unions or assorted campaigns.
Meanwhile, I don't believe that merely being formed by a notable individual is enough. If a party does not meet clause 1 or 2, then I'd rather see the information merged into the article on the individual. Warofdreams talk 17:07, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
So, erm, what now? — Nightstallion 10:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I'vr just come back from a week's camping holiday, heh, so let me get my head straight and I'll get back onto it :) doktorb words deeds 11:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Doktorbuk's work is very laudable, but I still think that we don't need any particular policy on political parties' notability. -- Checco ( talk) 13:24, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Looks pretty good to me. We should be capitalising "Wikipedia", though. — Nightstallion 17:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I have added a table to the main page in an attempt to consolidate the points covered by the discussion. It allows the proposed clauses to be seen at the same time as the known issues and the potential solutions. Hopefully this will make it easier for people commenting later on in the process to understand what has gone before. Road Wizard ( talk) 00:53, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
I know I'm coming to this discussion very late but it seems remarkably open. Quite apart from what a "formal ally" actually means in some systems, especially those where it's impossible to formally register an alliance (beyond a ballot description which can be confusing in itself), there are some parties that are formally coalitions of all manner of small groups. For instance the British Labour Party has historically allowed affiliation by small parties, with the Independent Labour Party being perhaps the best known but not the only one, and other parties like Respect – The Unity Coalition and Scottish Socialist Party have also had this set-up, incorporating all manner of micro-parties with no other claim to notability.
Also because of the way modern British election law requires a formally registered party if a candidate is to have anything other than "Independent" on the ballot paper there are a ridiculous amount of registered political parties that are really nothing more than a branding mechanism for one or two serial fringe candidates. And prior to 1998 the register didn't exist and a candidate could use any description they liked - indeed some deliberately confusing labels like "Literal Democrat", "Conversative Party" and "New Labour" were used, sometimes by unconnected individuals on different occasions without any form of co-ordination. Timrollpickering ( talk) 12:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Having thought about the issues with the registation clause, I wonder if it could be merged into the campaigning thread? For if it's dead easy to register (like in the UK) then there will be countless attemps by people to keep articles based just on registeration (see Money Reform Party, et. al). If we can prove that a party can be registered easily (like the UK heh), but without much evidence of campaigning, then the merged clause would ensure that the party are notable if they have been elected to an assembly, proven campaigners etc. Keeping the registration separate may give it undue prominance. doktorb words deeds 20:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
The policy page has been copied to Wikipedia:Notability (political parties).
I'm not sure whether being officially registered isn't enough claim to notability in SOME countries. While it's apparently very easy to register as a party in the UK, it's a lot harder in other countries, and having successfully registered may alone be a certain claim to notability -- on the other hand, those parties which do manage to do that would usually achieve notability through some other clause, as well, I expect.
Another point is how successful a party has to be at contesting elections -- a party which achieves even half a percent may be notable in some countries (like Austria) which have a very rigid party system, i.e. where even 0.5% of the vote can be a substantial vote of confidence for completely new parties.
Just my first €0.02. — Nightstallion 19:12, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
This seems like a good start to me. Criterion 3 (history) is pretty vague, but I suppose that's the point - it's impossible to give a strict definition of 'an indisputable, clear, and certain importance in a nation's cultural/social history', but it should most of the time be clear whether or not it applies. The rest are all fairly reasonable, but here are a few points worth considering in more detail:
Overall though, I think this looks good, and would support making it a draft policy. (The examples I gave all come from Category:Political parties in the United Kingdom, which once this policy has been worked out, would be a good place to start applying it.) Terraxos ( talk) 19:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I think what we need to admit here is that political parties have a very differnt dynamic than other social and economic organizations. A very small party should not be compared with a very small company. A local pizzeria with 4-5 employees is not notable, but a very numerically small political organization can still have some degree of notability. We need to separate between between hoaxes/spoofs/jokes on one hand and serious organizations on the other. -- Soman ( talk) 21:11, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi, doktorb: thanks for the message. Hmmm...I agree with your suggestions, but they'll need rewording, especially the history clause. You'll also need an eternity clause.
So the reworded version looks like this:
Hope that helps, Anameofmyveryown ( talk) 00:56, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Just getting ready for work now, so when I get back tonight I will take a look at the other feedback here, and edit the policy for the first time with the collected opinions and whatever other thoughts. I think we could have a draft policy within a couple of weeks doktorb words deeds 05:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't think we need specifc criteria about parties, but if we decide differently I will support Soktorburk's suggestions. Anyway a few parties will not fit one of the five clauses proposed by Doktorbuk and few articles will be deleted on the new rules. Regarding Italy, the country where I live, I wouldn't oppose the deletion of articles about parties such as the National Democratic Party (Italy), Italy Again, Moderate Italy, United Pensioners and many other small parties whose articles are available at Category:Political parties in Italy or in Template:Italian political parties in 2007. Would you agree? -- Checco ( talk) 15:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
For New Zealand we seem to have a policy that if a party was registered, applied for broadcasting funding or ran candidates (even unsuccessfully) it is notable enough for inclusion. But we have less than two dozen parties active at any one time (with five or six appearing and disappearing at each election), so its relatively easy to keep track of. IdiotSavant ( talk) 11:45, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
@Nightstallion: Do you agree on the fact that, under the new rules, some of the articles about Italian political parties you created should be deleted? -- Checco ( talk) 13:59, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
As I see it now...
* This is my suggestion - if it can be proven that a party has been going for 2 years, with campaigning and/or electoral activity, without success, then I think that is enough proven work for our purposes.
doktorb words deeds 16:27, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
What is sure is that these rules are not tight and, maybe, that's good! However IWCA should be definitely included, even if this means that almost no article about an Italian party is up to deletion. In the end, I continue to think that we don't need any rules, especially if they are so loose. -- Checco ( talk) 10:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Looks like I'm rather late to the discussion here, but I really like doktorb's proposed clause 1 ("democratic representation") and 2 ("enduring activity"). How can we define active? We need evidence that they have undertaken genuine activity. I suggest that evidence a party has issued publications, stood in elections or retained elected representatives in any democratic body over a period of a minimum of two years would qualify. Maintaining a website or remaining a registered party in a state where there are no requirements for a minimum level of support or activity would not suffice. A minimum number of candidates may not be the answer - some parties, mostly on the far left, do not prioritise electoral activity, and may instead churn out large amounts of propaganda and primarily be active in trade unions or assorted campaigns.
Meanwhile, I don't believe that merely being formed by a notable individual is enough. If a party does not meet clause 1 or 2, then I'd rather see the information merged into the article on the individual. Warofdreams talk 17:07, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
So, erm, what now? — Nightstallion 10:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I'vr just come back from a week's camping holiday, heh, so let me get my head straight and I'll get back onto it :) doktorb words deeds 11:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Doktorbuk's work is very laudable, but I still think that we don't need any particular policy on political parties' notability. -- Checco ( talk) 13:24, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Looks pretty good to me. We should be capitalising "Wikipedia", though. — Nightstallion 17:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I have added a table to the main page in an attempt to consolidate the points covered by the discussion. It allows the proposed clauses to be seen at the same time as the known issues and the potential solutions. Hopefully this will make it easier for people commenting later on in the process to understand what has gone before. Road Wizard ( talk) 00:53, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
I know I'm coming to this discussion very late but it seems remarkably open. Quite apart from what a "formal ally" actually means in some systems, especially those where it's impossible to formally register an alliance (beyond a ballot description which can be confusing in itself), there are some parties that are formally coalitions of all manner of small groups. For instance the British Labour Party has historically allowed affiliation by small parties, with the Independent Labour Party being perhaps the best known but not the only one, and other parties like Respect – The Unity Coalition and Scottish Socialist Party have also had this set-up, incorporating all manner of micro-parties with no other claim to notability.
Also because of the way modern British election law requires a formally registered party if a candidate is to have anything other than "Independent" on the ballot paper there are a ridiculous amount of registered political parties that are really nothing more than a branding mechanism for one or two serial fringe candidates. And prior to 1998 the register didn't exist and a candidate could use any description they liked - indeed some deliberately confusing labels like "Literal Democrat", "Conversative Party" and "New Labour" were used, sometimes by unconnected individuals on different occasions without any form of co-ordination. Timrollpickering ( talk) 12:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Having thought about the issues with the registation clause, I wonder if it could be merged into the campaigning thread? For if it's dead easy to register (like in the UK) then there will be countless attemps by people to keep articles based just on registeration (see Money Reform Party, et. al). If we can prove that a party can be registered easily (like the UK heh), but without much evidence of campaigning, then the merged clause would ensure that the party are notable if they have been elected to an assembly, proven campaigners etc. Keeping the registration separate may give it undue prominance. doktorb words deeds 20:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
The policy page has been copied to Wikipedia:Notability (political parties).