Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/British National Party leadership election, 1999

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. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 22:17, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

British National Party leadership election, 1999

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

Article is basically a cut & paste of the opening para of History of the British National Party#Griffin leadership, identity nationalism; nothing of substance has been added, merely some flashy formatting. And there does not seem to be much that can be said about this tiny niche party election that cannot be contained in that article. I initially converted the article to a redirect, but article creator reverted the edit. TheLongTone (talk) 14:19, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

nothing is wrong with this because they have the 2011 and 2015 elections so they should also have the 1999 elections. Jim red91 (talk) 14:25, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

a classic example of WP:OTHERSTUFF.TheLongTone (talk) 15:18, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS can be a valid argument, particularly in cases like this where there are a series of articles on the same topic. Number 5 7 20:47, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 14:34, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 17:08, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We have numerous other articles on political party leadership elections (see e.g. Category:Political party leadership elections in the United Kingdom) including those of the BNP. As it was (at the time) a fairly significant party, I think a leadership election is notable. Number 5 7 20:47, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 20:56, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Regardless of the existence of other articles, and despite the small number of votes in the election, this seems like a notable chapter in the BNP's history with a fair amount of independent scholarly coverage ([1]), so passes the WP:GNG. I've fixed the vote counts in the article and added a source. If it's a cut and paste then it should be tagged as a split rather than deleted. —Nizolan ^(talk) 21:53, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

comment I don't think notability is the issue here; what I am concerned about is the fact that the article has no real content and I cannot imagine that there is really anything to say about it other than far-right fancruft.TheLongTone (talk) 14:19, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And having had a look at ([2]) my opinion is not changed. None looks like substantial coverage, merely mentions in the context of BNP history. Confirming my reason for believing this should be deleted.TheLongTone (talk) 14:23, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of content is a WP:SOFIXIT thing, not an argument for deletion (see WP:NOIMPROVEMENT), and the book I added on the article talks about the election in the context of leadership elections in the UK in general. And, generally, one would expect that in academic books a BNP leadership election is largely going to be mentioned in the context of the history of BNP. —Nizolan ^(talk) 07:37, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, article is clearly on a subject which we should be covering. That said, it certainly lacks content, and I'd be glad to help fix it up a bit. Ajraddatz (talk) 02:31, 1 April 2016 (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.