349:, you are focusing on one element of my nomination without looking at the whole. This party is a) not notable, and b) defunct. The latter would not be worth much as a reason to delete the article *on its own* were it not for the first factor. As I have said, and you have ignored, defunct parties such as the Whigs are clearly notable, their history speaks for themselves. I ask again, as you have ignored, can you answer the direct question "Is this party notable?"
641:; it is appropriate to point out the commonalities; this posting is transparent, not biased/selective in where it is posted, is not posted to user talk pages. My message does indeed have a point, that at worst any article should be merged and redirected, not deleted, which I think is reasonable to share and post at every one of these. I further suggest that others having any view post at every one of the AFDs (no matter what is your view). --
314:
that have had some part, however small, in the deveopment of (right wing) politics in the UK and to delete them leaves readers in total ignorance when they come across their names in other
Knowledge (XXG) articles, or in the real world and they want Knowledge (XXG) to give some information. It's minor role, compared to the Whigs, is amply reflected in the minimal ampount of space that the article occupies.
300:
That's not the case. If the first reason you give for deleting this article is that the party is defunct, then it's entirely logical that other defunct parties should also go. You're not suggesting that - and neither am I - but is's a spurious argument to put up as your main rationale. I noticed that
277:
As for the wider point about being on some kind of crusade against
Knowledge (XXG) articles; again, you are wrong. I am aware that there are very well regarded Knowledge (XXG) policies against this site being a collection of indiscriminate material. I am merely keeping up that policy brief: Knowledge
197:
Non notable, defunct party without any notable or important electoral results, no evidence of significant role in
English or British politics, nothing to indicate any electoral role in recent elections, and no evidence of credible third party sources proving notability as measured by Knowledge (XXG)
313:
a rationale for deletion. As for your crusade, it certainly seems that way. It is true that there a number of so-called parties that really are just one person having a bit of fun and, by and large, these could be deleted, but in this case (and
Libertarian Party) we are dealing with genuine parties
246:
It should be noted that the nominator has embarked on a crusade to delete a whole series of articles on political parties that he deems non-notable; when an AfD is declined, he returns later and makes another nomination, and another. There does not seem to be any effort to actually assess what
268:, your first point invalidates the rant which follows. Yes, the Whigs are defunct, but they are demonstrably notable and made quite an impact on British political history. Can you answer the direct question - "Is the New Nationalist Party making an impact on British political history"?
231:
Nominator says "nothing to indicate any electoral role in recent elections". Again, same applied to the vast majority of parties that have articles, but the article does make it clear that this party was dissolved in 2009 so what's surprisingh about that. Another
486:
keep nominating an AfD on the basis of importance (which may not be a valid criteria for an AfD nomination), ignoring the fact that a subject is notable, if it has received significant coverages in reliable sources. Knowledge (XXG) keep articles on the basis of
332:, a long time and respected editor with considerable expertise on right wing extremism, has added detail to the article, including more references to add to those which you earlier falsely described as having "no evidence of credible third party sources".
636:
Note: in response to one or two previous deletion campaigns that I have noticed (not involving the current deletion nominator), i have posted notice of the multiple AFDs going on at some of the AFDs, and given links to other AFDs. This is NOT
240:
The NNP was a significant though temporary development in the history of far right politics in the UK and an important part in the narrative of the break up of the BNP. Sharon Ebanks and others invovled in it have been major players in all of
567:
613:
I rather object to all of these going on separately, as this is expensive of community attention. In fact I suggest it is inappropriate to open multiple related AFDs separately rather than as part of one multiple article AFD (see
166:
542:
302:
216:
Knowledge (XXG) is supposed to be an encyclopaedia that is a repository of knowledge. Researchers and readers that come across New
Nationalist Party elsewhere or even in Knowledge (XXG) are supposed to find out more....
562:
522:
601:
213:
The fact that it's defunct is a stupid argument. So are the vast majority of parties that have articles on
Knowledge (XXG) including many very famous ones (Whigs, Liberals etc) - it's a non-argument.
517:
590:
547:
532:
596:
527:
160:
439:
459:
119:
576:
For this one note the deletion nominator has further disputed the list-item notability of the
Patriotic Socialist Party, deleting its entry in the List of UK political parties by
537:
618:). But after asking the deletion nominator of most of these to withdraw some, and finding no agreement on their part (rather than withdraw any AFDs, the deletion nominator
235:
No "notable or important electoral results" - well it didn't win that's for sure, but this also applied to the vast majority of parties that have articles, just within UK.
606:
419:
389:
If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list.
628:
383:
On the contrary, being defunct is of no relevance whatsoever and it does not strengthen your first assertion that the party is not notable. It is worth looking at
92:
87:
557:
96:
126:
79:
767:, all the sources at a quick glance reads like passing mentions. I relisted it in order to evaluate the sources further and I'm strongly against any
622:), and from past experience about AFDs, I expect there's no way to stop the separate AFDs going on. Some of them are headed for KEEP already, IMO.
181:
633:
And, IMO, they should all probably be KEPT, as there is documentation of party registration for every one I believe, and there is coverage.
510:. There are about 15 simultaneous AFDs about UK political parties going on, including about 11 alphabetically, started a little while ago:
148:
711:
per GNG. For me some of these nominations do have merit but this one clearly has the requisite multiple reliable third party sources.
17:
142:
83:
775:
755:
747:
720:
703:
680:
657:
500:
471:
451:
431:
400:
358:
341:
323:
287:
256:
207:
138:
61:
652:
729:
309:
notable"; "demonstrably notable" is a bit of an improvement, but neither is a counter to me saying that being defunct is
794:
40:
188:
676:
75:
67:
696:
154:
638:
384:
790:
672:
36:
615:
743:
496:
492:
631:, keeping the edit history available to properly credit contributions and to facilitate re-creation.
716:
689:
427:
354:
283:
203:
174:
396:
337:
319:
252:
647:
467:
447:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
789:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
52:. There is no possible delete closure on the !votes given, although I note Secret's comment.
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
57:
768:
764:
668:
739:
712:
483:
423:
350:
329:
279:
199:
488:
392:
346:
333:
315:
265:
248:
642:
463:
443:
113:
772:
752:
568:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Patriotic
Socialist Party (2nd nomination)
247:
significance a party has/had or to consider any of them within a wider context.
53:
543:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Libertarian Party (UK) (5th nomination)
303:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Libertarian Party (UK) (5th nomination)
220:
Nominator says there is "no evidence of credible third party sources". What?
563:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/The Common Good (political party)
523:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Britannica Party (3rd nomination)
587:
And four more recent additions (the asserted new "tranche" of AFDs?):
602:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Scottish
Democratic Alliance
228:, Birmingham City Council, Electoral Commission - not reliable?!!
783:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
553:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/New
Nationalist Party (UK)
518:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/4 Freedoms Party (UK EPP)
278:(XXG) is not a dump for every single piece of human knowledge.
591:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Fishing Party (Scotland)
548:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Miss Great Britain Party
533:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Fishing Party (Scotland)
732:
to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
597:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Independent Green Voice
625:
Not a single one of these articles should be deleted, IMO.
528:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Countryside Party (UK)
538:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Free England Party
620:
has stated that they plan to open a new tranche of AFDs
619:
577:
109:
105:
101:
173:
627:
At worst, an article can be MERGED and REDIRECTED to
607:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Yorkshire First
738:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
440:
list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions
187:
460:list of Organizations-related deletion discussions
558:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Roman Party
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
797:). No further edits should be made to this page.
629:List of political parties in the United Kingdom
420:list of Politics-related deletion discussions
8:
458:Note: This debate has been included in the
438:Note: This debate has been included in the
418:Note: This debate has been included in the
457:
437:
417:
491:not on the basis of achievement alone.
508:Comment (duplicate posting to 15 AFDs)
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
763:I really don't see where it meets
24:
305:you stated that "The Whigs are
1:
704:19:48, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
681:15:49, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
658:19:45, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
501:05:38, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
472:00:18, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
452:00:18, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
432:21:00, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
401:11:00, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
359:18:30, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
342:11:45, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
324:11:41, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
288:15:49, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
257:11:43, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
208:09:14, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
776:23:26, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
756:23:28, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
748:09:28, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
721:01:14, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
62:11:30, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
814:
385:Knowledge (XXG):Notability
76:New Nationalist Party (UK)
68:New Nationalist Party (UK)
786:Please do not modify it.
482:: I have no idea of why
32:Please do not modify it.
328:I might also add that
301:in the discussion on
667:clearly notable per
387:here which states, "
48:The result was
769:non-admin closure
750:
474:
454:
434:
805:
788:
737:
735:
733:
701:
694:
673:Jonathan A Jones
655:
650:
645:
192:
191:
177:
129:
117:
99:
34:
813:
812:
808:
807:
806:
804:
803:
802:
801:
795:deletion review
784:
751:
728:
726:
697:
690:
653:
648:
643:
430:
357:
286:
206:
134:
125:
90:
74:
71:
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
811:
809:
800:
799:
779:
778:
736:
725:
724:
723:
706:
683:
661:
660:
634:
623:
611:
610:
609:
604:
599:
594:
585:
584:
583:
582:
581:
571:
570:
565:
560:
555:
550:
545:
540:
535:
530:
525:
520:
512:
511:
504:
503:
476:
475:
455:
435:
426:
414:
413:
412:
411:
410:
409:
408:
407:
406:
405:
404:
403:
370:
369:
368:
367:
366:
365:
364:
363:
362:
361:
353:
330:User:Keresaspa
307:self evidently
293:
292:
291:
290:
282:
272:
271:
270:
269:
260:
259:
243:
242:
237:
236:
233:
229:
218:
214:
202:
195:
194:
131:
70:
65:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
810:
798:
796:
792:
787:
781:
780:
777:
774:
770:
766:
762:
759:
758:
757:
754:
749:
745:
741:
734:
731:
722:
718:
714:
710:
707:
705:
702:
700:
695:
693:
687:
684:
682:
678:
674:
670:
666:
663:
662:
659:
656:
651:
646:
640:
639:wp:canvassing
635:
632:
630:
624:
621:
617:
612:
608:
605:
603:
600:
598:
595:
592:
589:
588:
586:
579:
575:
574:
573:
572:
569:
566:
564:
561:
559:
556:
554:
551:
549:
546:
544:
541:
539:
536:
534:
531:
529:
526:
524:
521:
519:
516:
515:
514:
513:
509:
506:
505:
502:
498:
494:
490:
485:
481:
478:
477:
473:
469:
465:
461:
456:
453:
449:
445:
441:
436:
433:
429:
425:
421:
416:
415:
402:
398:
394:
390:
386:
382:
381:
380:
379:
378:
377:
376:
375:
374:
373:
372:
371:
360:
356:
352:
348:
347:User:Emeraude
345:
344:
343:
339:
335:
331:
327:
326:
325:
321:
317:
312:
308:
304:
299:
298:
297:
296:
295:
294:
289:
285:
281:
276:
275:
274:
273:
267:
266:User:Emeraude
264:
263:
262:
261:
258:
254:
250:
245:
244:
239:
238:
234:
232:non-argument.
230:
227:
223:
219:
215:
212:
211:
210:
209:
205:
201:
190:
186:
183:
180:
176:
172:
168:
165:
162:
159:
156:
153:
150:
147:
144:
140:
137:
136:Find sources:
132:
128:
124:
121:
115:
111:
107:
103:
98:
94:
89:
85:
81:
77:
73:
72:
69:
66:
64:
63:
59:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
785:
782:
761:Admin's note
760:
727:
708:
698:
691:
688:per GNG. --
685:
664:
626:
552:
507:
479:
388:
310:
306:
225:
221:
198:guidelines.
196:
184:
178:
170:
163:
157:
151:
145:
135:
122:
50:no consensus
49:
47:
31:
28:
616:WP:MULTIAFD
226:Searchlight
161:free images
740:Ricky81682
493:Wikicology
489:notability
791:talk page
713:Keresaspa
578:this edit
484:doktorbuk
464:• Gene93k
444:• Gene93k
37:talk page
793:or in a
730:Relisted
393:Emeraude
334:Emeraude
316:Emeraude
249:Emeraude
222:BBC News
120:View log
39:or in a
771:here .
480:Comment
424:doktorb
351:doktorb
280:doktorb
200:doktorb
167:WP refs
155:scholar
93:protect
88:history
773:Secret
765:WP:GNG
753:Secret
669:WP:GNG
217:where?
139:Google
97:delete
54:Stifle
692:Green
428:words
355:words
284:words
241:this.
204:words
182:JSTOR
143:books
127:Stats
114:views
106:watch
102:links
16:<
744:talk
717:talk
709:Keep
686:Keep
677:talk
665:Keep
497:talk
468:talk
448:talk
397:talk
338:talk
320:talk
253:talk
175:FENS
149:news
110:logs
84:talk
80:edit
58:talk
649:ncr
311:not
189:TWL
118:– (
746:)
719:)
679:)
671:.
654:am
644:do
499:)
470:)
462:.
450:)
442:.
422:.
399:)
391:"
340:)
322:)
255:)
224:,
169:)
112:|
108:|
104:|
100:|
95:|
91:|
86:|
82:|
60:)
742:(
715:(
699:C
675:(
593:
580:.
495:(
466:(
446:(
395:(
336:(
318:(
251:(
193:)
185:·
179:·
171:·
164:·
158:·
152:·
146:·
141:(
133:(
130:)
123:·
116:)
78:(
56:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.