Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Workers Party of Britain

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 redirect to George Galloway#Other developments (2015–19). The delete/redirect camp has made valid arguments that notability criteria are not satisfied and that we can't prognosticate on notability, while the keep camp hasn't really cited any evidence of notability beyond a deprecated source. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:42, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Workers Party of Britain

Workers Party of Britain (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)

This political party does not meet notability requirements. No organisation is inherently notable, including political parties. No organisation inherits notability from associated people, so the notability of George Galloway does not grant any notability to the party.

The current referencing includes primary sources and a blog source that do not contribute to notability. The only secondary source is a local newspaper article which I don't think counts as significant coverage. More than half of the article is text copied from the party's own website. It's a routine announcement that counts as dependent coverage. This article does not meet WP:NORG. Ralbegen (talk) 20:53, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Ralbegen (talk) 20:53, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Ralbegen (talk) 20:53, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Ralbegen (talk) 20:53, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep here is an article in the Daily Mail. The organization was founded less than a month ago and has already made headlines in major UK media outlets.--TM 01:10, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Namiba: Click. ミラP 04:39, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes—for the GNG and WP:NORG, coverage has to come from reliable sources amongst the other criteria. The Daily Mail explicitly fails that requirement. Ralbegen (talk) 10:11, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Too soon to decide. If it turns out to be just a front for Galloway it can be merged into his article. Rathfelder (talk) 10:44, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to George Galloway#Other developments (2015–19). The party lacks the significant coverage in reliable sources required to meet WP:GNG and WP:ORG. In the absence of those sources there's no basis to write an encyclopaedia article rather than a summary of a few news stories. Nonetheless, it's plausible that a better claim for notability might be made in the coming months or years, and it's not unreasonable to expect that some people will be looking for information about it on Wikipedia. As such, preserving the search term and the history is likely to be useful. (I don't think, however, that much if anything needs to be merged – the two sentences in the Galloway article are sufficient for now.) – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:39, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That could work! Ralbegen (talk) 20:43, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The suggested redirect to George Galloway#Other developments (2015–19) is sensible as GNG is not there yet, however, these situations can change quickly as we saw at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brexit Party. There is enough RS to confirm the existence of this organisation (e.g. the Daily Mail, while not a WP-RS, it one of the most widely read papers in Britain), and thus it will probably always be a valid ReDirect to George Galloway. As to whether it becomes a fully notable party for a standalone WP article, we will see.... Britishfinance (talk) 11:06, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It appears to be as notable as Association of Communist Workers and most of the other stalinist organisations which have articles. It's certainly organising events, which, given Galloway's notoriety and his interest in Iran, will attract some mainstream coverage. Rathfelder (talk) 15:26, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Whether an organisation will get coverage in the future doesn't confer notability. Ralbegen (talk) 17:19, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I think its an important article, and George Galloway is a huge public figure. (MoonlightTulsi) (talk) 03:38, 12 January 2020

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.