Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/English Independence Party

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 - Yomangani^talk 13:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] English Independence Party

• Delete - not notable. One of the key tests for notability - perhaps the key test - is set out here: User:Uncle G/On notability. This article is about a "political party" - but the only sources offered for the article are (1) entries on the Electorial Commission website evidencing that it is in fact registered (2) the homepage of the party (2) a report of an election result where the party's only candidate stood and got only 1.4% of the vote and (3) one solitary passing mention in a BBC news article from years ago, where the candidate is mentioned but the party itself isn't. There just isn't justification for an article here. --SandyDancer 11:05, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I feel it should not be deleted. It may be a small party and you may not agree with it, but that is no reason to delete it form Wikipedia. The England First Party are a party just as small of the EIP, the English Democrats have as many councillors as the English Independence Party (0). `BBC news article from years ago` this is telling of the history of the party. It's a small and fairly young party so you cannot expect that the party will have been advertised as much as Labour or the British National Party, the English Democrats and [[England First Party] haven't been advertised much will you delete them?. Nor can you expect as many elections to be fought by such a small party, the funds simply arn't there. If your only reason to delete this is because of a lack of referances you could delete the England First Party article with only 3 referances and the English Democrats with 0 referances !R johnson 11:43, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment The core of your argument appears to be an admission that this party isn't notable at the moment but should be or might be one day. So you do nothing to assert the notabiliy of this page (which I note you created and which you have been the only real contributor to...)
    • As far as I can see this party doesn't have any elected representatives, and its sole participation has been its founder running in one parliamentary election (losing his deposit) and in one council election. Correct me if I am wrong. --SandyDancer 12:05, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
      • So your argument for deleteing the article is because the party has been unsuccessful in getting representatives into councils etc? May I note that the English Democrats have no representatives of any form in councils etc. The England First Party doesn't have many more members than the EIP. I did not create the page only edited it. All the reason you have given me to delete this article could be used to delete alot of other articles. 84.66.69.76 12:34, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment You are wrong I am afraid. The English Democrats have two members who are elected councillors, as do the England First Party. The English Democrats, certainly, have received a certain amount of publicity and many people have heard of them. Not sure about the English First Party - I've personally never heard of them.
        • If you think other articles should be deleted feel free to propose them - but that isn't an argument for keeping this one. --SandyDancer 12:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, he didn't create it that I can tell, also note his recent activities on the article have largely consisted of repeatedly removing mentions of its electoral failures, which still has yet to be explained despite many many requests; combined with adding unverifiable material. Given the almost total lack of secondary source material about the party, I don't see why it shouldn't be deleted. If it gets a single councillor my position may change. Comparisons to English Democrats are specious : that party, for better or worse, has had far more press coverage and for that matter candidacies. Morwen - Talk 12:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I am English and have never heard of this party. Neither the party nor its founder score significantly on the Google test. Having gone to the trouble fo putting their accounts in External Links, the figures confirm that the party is vanishingly insignificant with their year's total income of around £2,000. The party has no elected representatives, at any level, and if that ever changes tere will probably be some millinery consumption going on. In short: a one man band, and the one man does not appear to be notable as a result (unlike, say, Bill Boaks, whose quixotic parliamentary campaigns got him a good deal of notice). Guy 12:21, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. A small party they may be but so are a lot of the other parties covered on Wikipedia. Plus the article doesn't mention that they stood in the Ipswich by-election, 2001, meaning that in their current form they have fought two elections and fave been active for five years. If this one goes a lot of others will follow and Wikipedia will lose valuable content on minor parties as a result. Keresaspa 13:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
  • note the reason it doesn't have that is that one of their supporters kept removing it, apparently because the party is embarrassed by the result. Morwen - Talk 13:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
    • there are few political parties quite as insignificant as this that have pages on Wikipedia, so I doubt we'd be in much danger of losing lots of valued info. This was one fails jutst about any notability criteria you throw at it --SandyDancer 13:56, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
      • I wont have a cow if this goes but I do fear that it will set a precedent and soon the likes of the Reform 2000 Party, the Christian Democratic Party (UK), The New Party (UK) and the Fellowship Party will follow on the same basis. Minor parties are an important part of democractic politics and I feel belong here. The EIP are not really what I'm worried about, more the fact that getting rid of them will mean than all minor parties become fair game for deletion. Keresaspa 14:51, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Not embarrassed. The man who stood in the election was not an EIP member, but somebody who conned the party. R johnson 19:01, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
      • RJohnson, can you please let the rest of us know your role in this party? It seems to me you are using Wikipedia to create the impression that a virtually non-existent political party is in fact active and notable, which it clearly isn't.

        Wikipedia should be about things that are already notable - it should be used as a tool to promote things that aren't. --SandyDancer 17:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Whether the content is valuable is beside the point. Whether the content is verifiable is, however. One of the points raised in the nomination is that there are no sources other than the party's own web site for anything except the election result, which should of course be mentioned in the result table for the election, and already is. To justify having more than just a single line in a results table, there needs to be source material from independent sources that is itself more than just a single line in a list of election results. There isn't such material. Coverage such as this is just 1 line in an election results table.

    Moreover, this article's description of this political party makes for good reading, indicating as it does that nobody knows anything about this party apart from rumours and what is on its web site, and they don't trust that:

    "Not much is known about this party, although sources have told us that they stand for a white England. We have also been informed that this party does not agree with Immigration or a multi-cultural society, so it seems this party could be more on the lines of an English BNP. This information however could be incorrect, and we cannot verify this as there is no E-mail address on the web site etc. Anyway, to judge for yourself, visit the link."

    The size of the party, which you are also trying to make the focus of the discussion, is also beside the point. To warrant an encyclopaedia article, we need more material than just 1 single web site published by the party itself, which is all that is available here. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for simply re-hashing a political party's own propaganda. But without any independent sources whatsoever, that is the only thing that an article on this party can ever be.

    The 1 line in the election results table is all that can be found outside of Wikipedia, and is all that should be found inside Wikipedia. Uncle G 14:07, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

`RJohnson, can you please let the rest of us know your role in this party? It seems to me you are using Wikipedia to create the impression that a virtually non-existent political party is in fact active and notable, which it clearly isn't.

Wikipedia should be about things that are already notable - it should be used as a tool to promote things that aren't.`

• I'm not a member of the party if that was what you ment. It is not non-existent it is active, the EFP has never been in the paper are you going to delete there article after this? The Englanf First Party and English Democrats both have few if no referances so I find deleteing this article for that reason is poor. The UEP description is very old it was written when the party didn't have a website and you could only call Christopher Nickerson to find out anything, i have email the admin of UEP to update the description and nothing is ever done. I honestly don't see the reason why you want it deleted. It is similar to the BNP but a little less racist, politicians find the EIP less extreme to talk with. Wikipedia plays host to alot of small "pointless" parties.
• `One of the points raised in the nomination is that there are no sources other than the party's own web site`
• Have you been on the EFP article? Did you notice there are only three referances. Can we refraine from editing the article until this is resolves. I've been criticises for such actions but your just as bad. R johnson 18:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Fine. Nominate that for deletion too then.

Wikipedia guidelines are clear on this kind of thing - if something isn't notable enough to have been written about by third parties, it isn't notable enough to be on here. This isn't a directory. --SandyDancer 19:06, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• Are you going to delete all articles about small parties? I'd suggest your next target be Cymru Annibynnol a small Welsh party whos Electoral Commission statement of accounts stopped in 2003 leading me to believe it is defunct. But no your not i'd wager, because it's not about small parties or articles is it? It's about the English Independence Party, you either don't like the party or the article. I don't think it's worth getting into such a rant about such a small party. R johnson 19:20, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Look, I won't be drawn into a slanging match about this. If you have any argument why this page is notable enough to justify a Wikipedia article - and if you think verifiable content can be written - bearing in mind that it has never been mentioned once by third party source - please do present it. If not just accept the inevitable. I am not in favour of deleting notable minor political parties, even extremely small or unsuccessful ones. This one just isn't notable. --SandyDancer 19:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• Are you really suggesting the Cymru Annibynnol are a notable party? I'm not trying to draw you into a slanging match. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by R johnson (talk • contribs) .

I expressed no opinion on that party and I am not interested in discussing it. If you have no arguments as to why this article should not be deleted, you are wasting your time posting. --SandyDancer 21:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - As per Morwen. I was interested in them because of their rather unusual view on English secession, but I guess if this was notable enough to get onto Wikipedia, it would also be notable enough to have more than one website mentioning it. Pfainuk 20:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
  • • Comment Why is this listed twice? Edison 00:51, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, despite this party contesting in the general elections, it doesn't assert much notability. With the sources given, it has a vague mention in the BBC articles and other sources come from its website. The party has not enough coverage by the media and it has very few obscure candidates. Even the founder himself is non-notable and there's no need for an article here on Wikipedia. --Terence Ong _{(T | C)} 04:22, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

• How about we put this above the article like on the Serbia article?

{{:tl:unreferenced}} All the reasons you've given me to delete this article can be used to delete half of Wikipedia.

• Lack of referances.

You could delete half of the articles of Wikipedia for a lack of referances.

• Not notable.

You could easily delete 50% of articles about British political parties that have articles of Wikipedia. At least the EIP has a history. Until you provide a reason i'm unconvinced. I do not make it my business to accuse people but I believe you purely want to delete this article as a {{POV}} not a nuetral stance. R johnson 11:11, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Please stop with the paranoia. Please especially stop with the "I don't like to accuse people" stuff, when your very first response to this deletion debate was to accuse User:SandyDancer of wanting to delete the party because supposedly User:SandyDancer disagrees with the party (of which you provided no evidence).

The fact is there are NO independent sources about this party - and you keep removing bits you don't like or find embarrasing - repeatedly over and over abusing the minor edit feature and refusing to supply a reason. If anyone is using the article to POV push it is you.

The policies of the party in question have nothing to do with it. Other political party articles may not have references right now, but they are generally sourceable - the sources actually exist, and only remain to be added. This article has no good sources. Because there ARE NO GOOD SOURCES. You seem to have been adding information based on email with Nickerson, which is NOT AN ACCEPTABLE SOURCE, as I have told you on your talk page. Morwen - Talk 12:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I notice he has removed the reference to the bad election result yet again[1]. However I am not inclined to revert because either way, this article needs to be deleted for all the reasons above. A proper article is impossible because there are no third party sources. --SandyDancer 21:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

My understanding is that we now have a consensus to delete and that since the 5 days has expired someone should be along soon to do so. Morwen - Talk 10:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Non-notable party, by and large, and as Morwen points out, there are no reliable sources that are good. There has been no headlines or publications relating to them that indicate general notability, and as such, this is an argument for deletion. Third-party sources, both as primary sources and secondary sources which assert notability are needed if this was to be kept. --SunStar Net 11:02, 9 November 2006 (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.