Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Independent Green Voice (3rd nomination)

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. – bradv^🍁 17:02, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Independent Green Voice[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Contested CSD. Recreation of article following AfD which I have always thought is against the rules. Wikipedia is not a Gazetteer of political parties. Fails GNG and ORG. Fails notability for political party by having no notable results or achievements beyond that expected of a political party, namely standing for election. "Finished in top 10 at Scottish Parliament elections" is not an achievement in itself (no deposits saved, no MSPs elected). doktorb _words^deeds 04:38, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. doktorb _words^deeds 04:38, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. doktorb _words^deeds 04:38, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. doktorb _words^deeds 04:38, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the close for the last AFD specifically said there was no bar on recreation and that is clearly what happened. Nobody has broken any "rules". But in response to your third nomination of this article (in its third form) for deletion, can you explain why coverage like this, this, this, this, this, this, and this wouldn't be considered significant enough to justify the subject's inclusion? St★lwart¹¹¹ 05:17, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to 2021 Scottish Parliament election. I had a go at improving the page a little. However, I am still inclined to look at this as not meeting the WP:Event guidelines, given that notable coverage all seems to centre around this one election and the claim that IGV cost the Scottish Greens seats. The previous AfD closed as delete but specifically speculated that the May 2021 election coverage might provide sourcing for the topic to meet notability guidelines. While more mention in reliable sourcing now exists, it seems very much restricted to the Scottish Greens' complaint, and so doesn't meet notability. OsFish (talk) 07:35, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - sourced with post-election references. Unreal7 (talk) 07:43, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - nom has a history of attempting to delete all minor party articles. Coming back for a third bite of the cherry looks like an abuse of process. Emeraude (talk) 07:54, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Wrong. The prior discussion resulted in a delete vote, and it is not abuse of process to renominate when it is recreated, even if that was without prejudice.
- This is not a valid keep reason within the rules of AfD. Please remember to be civil and assume good faith. If you're new to these discussions, or want any further advice, you can try the Teahouse. doktorb _words^deeds 21:56, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Apologies - I misread. Emeraude (talk) 09:44, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - As someone uninvolved, I have to say that Doktorbuk is absolutely correct on this point. The previous very recent AfD resulted in deletion; the community agreed with them. There is nothing wrong with nominating the page again. On the other hand, while Doctorbuk has a point that someone re-creating a page only just deleted might be vexatious, in this specific instance, the possibility of future notability after the May 2021 election was openly raised. The question is whether the new sources available post election now justify a separate article on IGV. I see no bad behaviour in this from either the re-creator or the AfD nominator. OsFish (talk) 06:53, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Failed party that gets less than half a percent of the vote is not necessarily entitled to an article. 2021 Scottish Parliament election#Analysis already covers this content and can incorporate the above sources without a separate page. Reywas92^Talk 14:58, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that the same with the Abolish the Scottish Parliament Party and Restore Scotland? Unreal7 (talk) 14:30, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, merge them too. Performing miserably in a single election doesn't mean there must be an article. Reywas92^Talk 14:34, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Equally, it doesn't mean there mustn't be. Emeraude (talk) 16:10, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'd merge or delete those without a doubt. I'll have to wait a bit before nominating them, but they are on my watchlist for future AfDs, as all such parties are and always will be. doktorb _words^deeds 02:16, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That sums up your campaign nicely. Emeraude (talk) 08:17, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've never hidden or denied it. Wikipedia is not a free webhost for every single registration on the Register of Political Parties. I will always look at new articles for political parties and ask myself, "Is this notable enough?". I know we don't agree on political party articles on here, but that's just what it is, we differ. doktorb _words^deeds 08:53, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

keep passes GNG. It is a thing which has made sufficient impact during its short life. --Tagishsimon (talk) 08:10, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, enough coverage to pass GNG. We have articles on many failed political parties and perennial candidates because they have substantial references, despite never winning an election, and this case is no different. Jackattack1597 (talk) 01:42, 3 September 2021 (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.