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. The arguments for keeping this article all revolve around WP:ITSUSEFUL, which as we all know is not a valid rationale. On the other hand no one successfully contested the apparent lack of notability, which is the reason the article was brought to AFD to begin with. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:28, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Patriotic Socialist Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Tiny, insignificant party that fails WP:GNG as it is not widely covered in multiple reliable sources and is simply running three candidates in local elections during which several thousand seats are up for grabs. Apart from a very brief descriptive article in a local paper mentioning that a candidate is running the sources are all from the party's own website or just confirmation of their existence rather than actual coverage. Also, whilst not a criterion for deletion per se, the article has serious POV issues as it presents what the party claims about themselves as fact with the creator attempting to remove any reference to claims that they are far right. At best this is WP:TOOSOON at worst soapboxing. Keresaspa (talk) 19:28, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not notable enough, standing only 3 candidates in local authority elections. Next to no third party coverage. No evidence of significance beyond self-generated Internet noise. Not important enough for politics projects here on Wiki. doktorb _words^deeds 21:43, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"it presents what the party claims about themselves as fact". Not true. "the creator attempting to remove any reference to claims that they are far right". No I didn't. I removed one statement, because it was unsubstantiated and which Keresaspa admits was unsubstantiated (I still don't know where he got his information about 'loose' associations and 'active' associations. If he's willing to provide citations for the information, perhaps he should add it to this article or to others. That said, I'm also confused as to why he's adding info to an article that he thinks should be deleted). As for being a candidate for deletion, there are many Wikipedia articles out there on political parties that have no independent sources or just one. This article has several. "Not notable enough, standing only 3 candidates in local authority elections." They're standing in the upcoming Newark by-election too. The article makes that quite clear! Renren8123 (talk) 12:57, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Do not Delete There are a number of political parties with wiki articles that aren't standing, or don't often stand very many candidates, yet we still include them on Wikipedia. Furthermore, what needs to be taken note of is that the Patriotic Socialist Party is relatively new and therefore needs some concession put forward on those grounds. However, despite the fact that it is relatively youthful it is still standing a candidate for the by-election in Newark, which is going to feature prominently. Therefore, the article should not be deleted. Kezzer16 (talk) 18:29, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment @Renren8123 "it presents what the party claims about themselves as fact". Not true. Quite true when the only source for a number of claims is the party's own website. To quote the second sentece of WP:N - Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article.

because it was unsubstantiated and which Keresaspa admits was unsubstantiated - No it wasn't and no I didn't.

I still don't know where he got his information about 'loose' associations and 'active' associations - Some of the groups were named in the source as having members speaking at the rally, others as simply sending supporters. If you speak at a rally you're invited but anybody can just turn up so I felt the distinction was worth noting and "active" and "loose" were my own words. I didn't restore them in an attempt to build consensus.

That said, I'm also confused as to why he's adding info to an article that he thinks should be deleted See WP:BEFORE - it's what you're SUPPOSE to do.

As for being a candidate for deletion, there are many Wikipedia articles out there on political parties that have no independent sources or just one. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS

This article has several. The party's own website is not independent and the passing mentions on the Electoral Commission's site and those of the relevant councils prove their existence not their notability (the basis for having an article). Only the Huddersfield Daily Examiner link is an independent source with more than a passing mention and even then it is simply stating that they exist and are standing in a local election.

They're standing in the upcoming Newark by-election too. There are plenty of parties to have contested by-elections that don't have articles. WP:GNG is the cornerstone of Wikipedia and without proper WP:V articles are deleted.

And furthermore please don't come on my talk page shouting the odds. The debate is on this page as that's how it works on Wikipedia. You stated on my page You seem undecided whether you want the article deleted or whether you want more information added. If you can provide multiple, independent, reliable sources covering the party as Wikipedia demands then I will have no desire whatsoever to see the article deleted. Until that time then I'll support deletion. You also stated on my talk page The article has already been nominated for deletion by somebody else. That nomination has been rejected. Not the case - the article was tagged for speedy deletion and didn't fulfil the criteria for that. This sort of deletion debate is an entirely separate process. I'll hold my hands up to one thing though - it wasn't you who removed previous edits about the party being right wing. Keresaspa (talk) 00:30, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment @Keresaspa. "Quite true when the only source for a number of claims is the party's own website." That's the same as with many Wikipedia articles, but, as is proper, with anything potentially contentious, I've used words like 'claims'. "if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article." Well, then, it's a good thing that there are reliable, third-party sources cited in the article.

"No it wasn't and no I didn't." I said, "Cited source gives no indication of 'active' versus 'loose' associations". You replied, "OK remove "loosely" and "closely"". What is that 'OK', if not an admission that it isn't substantiated?

"Some of the groups were named in the source as having members speaking at the rally, others as simply sending supporters. If you speak at a rally you're invited but anybody can just turn up so..." That doesn't give any sound grounding to the claim about 'loose' and 'close' associations. That would be original research on your part.

"See WP:BEFORE - it's what you're SUPPOSE to do." It says to search for additional sources. But, if you're actually adding sources to the article, you're really defeating your own claim that the article should be deleted.

"WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS". Indeed, and what does it say? "These comparisons may or may not be valid".

"And furthermore please don't come on my talk page shouting the odds." When was I shouting, literally or metaphorically? The only person who has used any language that could be deemed insulting is you. Renren8123 (talk) 19:59, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. To be useful, Wikipedia must provide content that people want to read. People reading about the Newark By-Election will want to know about the parties standing. This is not a big or old party so there's not much we can say about it yet. That may change and hopefully we'll include more third party references. Until then, it's better that voters get their information here (where we try to be impartial) than at the PSP website or on radical left- or right-wing discussion boards. All other parties contesting Newark have their own articles, including the Bus Pass Elvis Party. (Note that 'other stuff exists' is an essay, not policy, and is anyway quite nuanced.) --Wavehunter (talk) 15:38, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Usefulness is not a criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia and third party reliable sources are not an optional extra. The Bus Pass Elvis Party article is well sourced to the aforementioned third party reliable sources and so is no comparison. If you wish to talk about by-elections then what about the Independent Socialist Party in the South Shields by-election, 2013, Beer, Baccy and Crumpet in the Eastleigh by-election, 2013 or Nine Eleven was an Inside Job and the Young People's Party in the Croydon North by-election, 2012 to name some recent examples. It still comes down to verifiability through third party, reliable sources and the general notability guidelines that underpin Wikipedia, not an arbitrary judgement call on whether or not an article is useful. Keresaspa (talk) 19:47, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - It is an article on a current political party and is sourced. However few their candidates, they still exist. That said, feel free to edit it if you believe the article is biased towards the party --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 15:41, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Nearly all of the references in the article are to the group's own publications. The few that are not merely confirm that a group with this name exists; there is no third-party coverage of the nature of this group, nor any evidence of its notability. The mere fact of registration with the Electoral Commission is not evidence of notability; there are 524 such registered groups, most of them as insignificant as this one. Unless reliable third-party sources can be adduced as to the significance of this group, it fails the notability test. RolandR (talk) 20:31, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Yet another person who seeks to edit the article, while at the same time claiming that it needs to be deleted! Renren8123 (talk) 20:46, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

Comment Proposing it for deletion while stating that if reliable sources can be found they would be happy for it to stay is quite a reasonable comment. If the article can be improved then it stands to reason editors will want to keep it.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:15, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Delete as no evidence of notability. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 14:08, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No evidence of notability so unless it can be found it makes sense to remove, if references become available so that it gains notability it can be recreated at that point Amortias (T)(C) 15:24, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I favor automatically keeping all articles on political parties, their leaders, and their youth sections regardless of size and ideology. As this is a registered party and it is running at least one candidate, this meets my own threshold, which I encourage others to support. This is the sort of material which should be in a comprehensive encyclopedia. If you wish to read this as a defense rationale based on the pillar and policy of WP:Ignore All Rules (use common sense), go ahead. Carrite (talk) 16:38, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as the party has no proven notability. Wikipedia is not a platform for which to run a local election campaign; this page should be removed until there is actual encyclopaedic value in having it. — Zcbeaton (talk) 03:23, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.