- 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 keep. Bringing this to AfD again only two weeks after the previous AfD was closed "keep" is highly inappropriate and disruptive. If you don't agree with the close, then WP:DRV is the place to go. Randykitty ( talk) 21:38, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Northern Independence Party
AfDs for this article:
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Northern Independence Party ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article deleted through AfD on November 2020. Article recreated, which I thought was against policy, certainly a recreation which did not improve on concerns about notability. Article has continuous and constant notability concerns. Notability tag is added and removed constantly. 2nd AfD was plagued by editors being encouraged by the party's active Twitter account to vote !keep.
The party is not registered with the Electoral Commission. This means they fail GNG and ORG. The party has not achieved any notable election results. This means they fail GNG. The party has no notable people involved or associated with them. This means they fail GNG.
I am concerned that the article was allowed to be recreated after AfD, which is against policy, without any justification for the article's existence. I am sorry - truly - to take this to AfD for a third time. But I genuinely believe that the article should not be hosted on Wikipedia and I trust that the wider community agrees with me. doktorb words deeds 19:11, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. doktorb words deeds 19:11, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.
doktorb
words
deeds 19:11, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
- doktorb, Could you possibly indicate the exact wording of WP:GNG which you feel supports the assertion that: 1) parties that are not registered with the electoral commission are not notable, 2) parties that have not received notable election results are not notable, 3) parties not associated with notable individuals are not notable? As I understand GNG very clearly states that the necessary criteria is coverage in Reliable Sources, which undoubtedly exists. Boynamedsue ( talk) 19:37, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
- Keep None of the reasons Doktorbuk cites as reasons the article fails GNG are valid reasons for it to fail GNG. GNG is quite explicit in what criteria need to be met to pass it; "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". NIP has received such coverage, per the last AfD. Sam Walton ( talk) 19:19, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
- Speedy close and WP:TROUT for OP. While I have my doubts about the notability of this party, I think starting a 3rd AfD only two weeks after the last one is poor form and a bit of a time waste, really. Trout for Doktorbuk for this one -- he should have at least waited until after the by-election. — Czello 19:19, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
- speedy keep General notability guidelines do not require a party to be registered with the electoral commission, they do not require electoral success, they do not require "notable people" to be associated with them. They require significant coverage in reliable sources, which the party had in spades two weeks ago, and blow me if it doesn't have even more today. This nomination is frivolous to the point of absurdity, I am at a loss to understand what is going on here, because it seems to have nothing to do with the application of WP:GNG. Boynamedsue ( talk) 19:23, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
- Delete, though I'm also concerned with how quickly this AfD came up after the last one, and how specific groups are so desperate to have a Wikipedia article. SportingFlyer T· C 19:34, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
- Or indeed how certain people are desperate enough that they shouldn't have one that they nominate for deletion within a fortnight of the last nomination failing. I would suggest a political motivation for this nomination. Boynamedsue ( talk) 19:44, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
- Since this isn't a vote, is your reasoning omitted because it is the same as what you said at the last AfD? Or something else? — Bilorv ( talk) 19:56, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
- Speedy keep GNG do clearly specify that an article is "presumed" to be suitable if it has significant coverage. This party rather obviously reaches this requirement, and in fact according to the GNG's bullet points, far surpasses the "does not need to be the main topic of the source material" requirement (having several sources dedicated entirely to its name and policies). This is also, in my opinion, far too soon after the previous AfD. My personal advice is to wait until after the Hartlepool by-election to see whether this party's notability persists or not as whether to consider deletion, but for now, this seems frivolous and possibly even politically-motivated. Forvana 19:49, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
- Considering how overwhelming the amount of sources supplied by Bilorv is, and how the development for the by-election in Hartlepool is an irrelevant one to this matter (especially as Thelma Walker is still associated with the NIP, thus not even the notability decreases as such), I've changed my vote from a keep to a speedy keep. I'd also like to voice my protest against a potential fourth AfD - this should be the final AfD for the foreseeable future, as the community by then will have then decided twice (considering the evidence proffered, it seems near-obvious which outcome will occur). Forvana 20:07, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
- Speedy keep: the only thing that's changed since the last AfD is that something which didn't contribute to notability because it hadn't happened (them having an MP/elected representative), didn't happen. In other words, nothing has changed since the community decided two weeks ago that the article met GNG. If the issue was that the closing admin didn't correctly discount canvassing—which was present—then DRV or approaching the admin would be the right next step. Note that there were plenty of non-canvassed participants arguing for a keep. Doktorb is incorrect that it is "against policy" to recreate an article after a successful AfD if the situation has changed, such as if new sources become available. This is what happened in this case and I've done it several times in other cases too (without any of those articles ever being subsequently deleted, even after further AfDs). It is an extreme misjudgement to take this to AfD a third time after edit warring over a {{ notability}} tag, even though you understand that the community decided against deletion a fortnight ago and that there was opposition to a third AfD on the article's talk page. If you want instead me to give an argument of the outcome that should happen had there been no discussions yet on this topic, surprise surprise it's a "keep: passes GNG" on the strength of the following in-depth sources, already included in the article: The Guardian (1), The Guardian (2), HuffPost, The Independent, New Statesman (1), New Statesman (2), The Scotsman, The Times. Consider also this source from The Spectator (Australia). There are a separate mass of sources discussing the NIP in the context of Hartlepool only ( BBC and The Independent, for example), and another mass of local coverage, and if these were the only sources then a merge to the by-election article would be warranted, but there are sufficiently many national sources containing non-trivial analysis of the NIP's ideology/policy and the context of its founding, so that its GNG claim was never conditional on any Hartlepool by-election result (would be strange if it were considering they had/have a flat 0% chance of winning it). We can see from the present state of the article that non-trivial non-routine details about the party and mainstream media reception to it can be created on the strength of a diversity of reliable sources. — Bilorv ( talk) 19:56, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
- Delete fails WP:N, even more tenuous link to notability than previously. Since the last AfD, the party has failed to register as a political party for the upcoming by-election or in time for local elections. The party has failed to demonstrate any serious support (the most high-profile supporter is a single ex-MP). Simply put, the party is a one trick pony that (understandably) gained some coverage in the press due to the trivia associated with the party's name. Furthermore, the fact that the leader of the party lives in London and hasn't relocated gives credence to the idea that it is more of a PR stunt than a serious attempt at politics. -- RaviC ( talk) 20:23, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
- procedural comment The essay on renominating for deletion states that after a keep vote the article should not be renominated for another 6 months. The renomination has occurred after an absurdly short period of time, having been closed as keep on the 27th of March. Nothing has happened in the intervening time that contradicts the sole argument of those who argued for keep, that NIP is covered non-trivially in reliable sources. I suggest that the nominator should withdraw the nomination, as it is clearly not justified procedurally. If not, I would call for an uninvolved admin to close the discussion as flawed. Boynamedsue ( talk) 20:27, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
- Keep this nomination is absolutely shameless and should be expunged from the records. No shock to find out which political party the nominator associates with, but I'd like to put it on record that there are definitely no ulterior motives at play. ItsKesha ( talk) 21:01, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
- Keep - what the actual fuck has changed since the last nomination two weeks ago where the article was closed as keep. This is all highly improper. The northern Independence Party still has a nomination with the electoral commission pending - http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/who-we-are-and-what-we-do/party-registration-applications/view-current-applications. -- Eraserhead1 < talk> 21:07, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Quite obviously passes WP:GNG, I just don't understand any of the arguments for deleting this. These three reliable articles clearly demonstrate the in-depth coverage of the party itself required to pass GNG. Zoozaz1 talk
- It's really hard to fathom, the OP has had two whole AfD's to answer the point you make, and as yet has so far managed not to discuss it. Boynamedsue ( talk) 21:24, 10 April 2021 (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.
- 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 keep. Bringing this to AfD again only two weeks after the previous AfD was closed "keep" is highly inappropriate and disruptive. If you don't agree with the close, then WP:DRV is the place to go. Randykitty ( talk) 21:38, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Northern Independence Party
AfDs for this article:
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Northern Independence Party ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article deleted through AfD on November 2020. Article recreated, which I thought was against policy, certainly a recreation which did not improve on concerns about notability. Article has continuous and constant notability concerns. Notability tag is added and removed constantly. 2nd AfD was plagued by editors being encouraged by the party's active Twitter account to vote !keep.
The party is not registered with the Electoral Commission. This means they fail GNG and ORG. The party has not achieved any notable election results. This means they fail GNG. The party has no notable people involved or associated with them. This means they fail GNG.
I am concerned that the article was allowed to be recreated after AfD, which is against policy, without any justification for the article's existence. I am sorry - truly - to take this to AfD for a third time. But I genuinely believe that the article should not be hosted on Wikipedia and I trust that the wider community agrees with me. doktorb words deeds 19:11, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. doktorb words deeds 19:11, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.
doktorb
words
deeds 19:11, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
- doktorb, Could you possibly indicate the exact wording of WP:GNG which you feel supports the assertion that: 1) parties that are not registered with the electoral commission are not notable, 2) parties that have not received notable election results are not notable, 3) parties not associated with notable individuals are not notable? As I understand GNG very clearly states that the necessary criteria is coverage in Reliable Sources, which undoubtedly exists. Boynamedsue ( talk) 19:37, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
- Keep None of the reasons Doktorbuk cites as reasons the article fails GNG are valid reasons for it to fail GNG. GNG is quite explicit in what criteria need to be met to pass it; "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". NIP has received such coverage, per the last AfD. Sam Walton ( talk) 19:19, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
- Speedy close and WP:TROUT for OP. While I have my doubts about the notability of this party, I think starting a 3rd AfD only two weeks after the last one is poor form and a bit of a time waste, really. Trout for Doktorbuk for this one -- he should have at least waited until after the by-election. — Czello 19:19, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
- speedy keep General notability guidelines do not require a party to be registered with the electoral commission, they do not require electoral success, they do not require "notable people" to be associated with them. They require significant coverage in reliable sources, which the party had in spades two weeks ago, and blow me if it doesn't have even more today. This nomination is frivolous to the point of absurdity, I am at a loss to understand what is going on here, because it seems to have nothing to do with the application of WP:GNG. Boynamedsue ( talk) 19:23, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
- Delete, though I'm also concerned with how quickly this AfD came up after the last one, and how specific groups are so desperate to have a Wikipedia article. SportingFlyer T· C 19:34, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
- Or indeed how certain people are desperate enough that they shouldn't have one that they nominate for deletion within a fortnight of the last nomination failing. I would suggest a political motivation for this nomination. Boynamedsue ( talk) 19:44, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
- Since this isn't a vote, is your reasoning omitted because it is the same as what you said at the last AfD? Or something else? — Bilorv ( talk) 19:56, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
- Speedy keep GNG do clearly specify that an article is "presumed" to be suitable if it has significant coverage. This party rather obviously reaches this requirement, and in fact according to the GNG's bullet points, far surpasses the "does not need to be the main topic of the source material" requirement (having several sources dedicated entirely to its name and policies). This is also, in my opinion, far too soon after the previous AfD. My personal advice is to wait until after the Hartlepool by-election to see whether this party's notability persists or not as whether to consider deletion, but for now, this seems frivolous and possibly even politically-motivated. Forvana 19:49, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
- Considering how overwhelming the amount of sources supplied by Bilorv is, and how the development for the by-election in Hartlepool is an irrelevant one to this matter (especially as Thelma Walker is still associated with the NIP, thus not even the notability decreases as such), I've changed my vote from a keep to a speedy keep. I'd also like to voice my protest against a potential fourth AfD - this should be the final AfD for the foreseeable future, as the community by then will have then decided twice (considering the evidence proffered, it seems near-obvious which outcome will occur). Forvana 20:07, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
- Speedy keep: the only thing that's changed since the last AfD is that something which didn't contribute to notability because it hadn't happened (them having an MP/elected representative), didn't happen. In other words, nothing has changed since the community decided two weeks ago that the article met GNG. If the issue was that the closing admin didn't correctly discount canvassing—which was present—then DRV or approaching the admin would be the right next step. Note that there were plenty of non-canvassed participants arguing for a keep. Doktorb is incorrect that it is "against policy" to recreate an article after a successful AfD if the situation has changed, such as if new sources become available. This is what happened in this case and I've done it several times in other cases too (without any of those articles ever being subsequently deleted, even after further AfDs). It is an extreme misjudgement to take this to AfD a third time after edit warring over a {{ notability}} tag, even though you understand that the community decided against deletion a fortnight ago and that there was opposition to a third AfD on the article's talk page. If you want instead me to give an argument of the outcome that should happen had there been no discussions yet on this topic, surprise surprise it's a "keep: passes GNG" on the strength of the following in-depth sources, already included in the article: The Guardian (1), The Guardian (2), HuffPost, The Independent, New Statesman (1), New Statesman (2), The Scotsman, The Times. Consider also this source from The Spectator (Australia). There are a separate mass of sources discussing the NIP in the context of Hartlepool only ( BBC and The Independent, for example), and another mass of local coverage, and if these were the only sources then a merge to the by-election article would be warranted, but there are sufficiently many national sources containing non-trivial analysis of the NIP's ideology/policy and the context of its founding, so that its GNG claim was never conditional on any Hartlepool by-election result (would be strange if it were considering they had/have a flat 0% chance of winning it). We can see from the present state of the article that non-trivial non-routine details about the party and mainstream media reception to it can be created on the strength of a diversity of reliable sources. — Bilorv ( talk) 19:56, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
- Delete fails WP:N, even more tenuous link to notability than previously. Since the last AfD, the party has failed to register as a political party for the upcoming by-election or in time for local elections. The party has failed to demonstrate any serious support (the most high-profile supporter is a single ex-MP). Simply put, the party is a one trick pony that (understandably) gained some coverage in the press due to the trivia associated with the party's name. Furthermore, the fact that the leader of the party lives in London and hasn't relocated gives credence to the idea that it is more of a PR stunt than a serious attempt at politics. -- RaviC ( talk) 20:23, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
- procedural comment The essay on renominating for deletion states that after a keep vote the article should not be renominated for another 6 months. The renomination has occurred after an absurdly short period of time, having been closed as keep on the 27th of March. Nothing has happened in the intervening time that contradicts the sole argument of those who argued for keep, that NIP is covered non-trivially in reliable sources. I suggest that the nominator should withdraw the nomination, as it is clearly not justified procedurally. If not, I would call for an uninvolved admin to close the discussion as flawed. Boynamedsue ( talk) 20:27, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
- Keep this nomination is absolutely shameless and should be expunged from the records. No shock to find out which political party the nominator associates with, but I'd like to put it on record that there are definitely no ulterior motives at play. ItsKesha ( talk) 21:01, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
- Keep - what the actual fuck has changed since the last nomination two weeks ago where the article was closed as keep. This is all highly improper. The northern Independence Party still has a nomination with the electoral commission pending - http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/who-we-are-and-what-we-do/party-registration-applications/view-current-applications. -- Eraserhead1 < talk> 21:07, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Quite obviously passes WP:GNG, I just don't understand any of the arguments for deleting this. These three reliable articles clearly demonstrate the in-depth coverage of the party itself required to pass GNG. Zoozaz1 talk
- It's really hard to fathom, the OP has had two whole AfD's to answer the point you make, and as yet has so far managed not to discuss it. Boynamedsue ( talk) 21:24, 10 April 2021 (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.