Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Labour Party Rule Book

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 Kept.. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:59, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Labour Party Rule Book

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

I'm not convinced that there is anything that can be encyclopaedically said about the rule book of a politcal party beyond the lead of this article (which is better with context in the main Labour Party article). Everything else is a list of the chapter headings taken directly from [1] (which afaict has no explicitly copyright status, but I don't know if this can be copyrighted?). The only part here with any encyclpoaedic coverage is Clause IV, which has its own article already. Thryduulf (talk) 01:54, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 01:55, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of UK-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 01:55, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Every association has a constitution, some have provisions which become contested over time, depending on circumstances and lines of forces. In this case, the main ground of contestation is already well covered at Clause IV and the organisation itself and its history at Labour Party (UK). In that context, I see no need for this article, either in its own right or as a redirect. AllyD (talk) 08:24, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is useful because it publicises some important elements of one of the oldest and most significant political parties in the world. Wik idea 12:04, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- What useful elements are they? There is hardly any actual information in this article, and all of that is already in Labour Party (UK) and/or Clause IV. The party isn't really one of the world's oldest either (founded 1900), compare for example Conservative Party (UK) (formally constituted 1834, origins go back to 1670s), Republican Party (United States) (1854), Democratic Party (United States) (ca. 1828), True Whig Party (Liberia, 1869), etc. Thryduulf (talk) 13:21, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep You could actually write about amendments and changes made to the Labour Party Rule Book, it hasn't remained the same throughout its existance, and probably underwent radical changes in several cases, as when Tony Blair removed Clause IV.. Keep, similar to the Constitution of the Communist Party of China. --TIAYN (talk) 19:36, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- That would surely be better covered at History of the Labour Party (UK) with spinout articles like Clause IV where needed. Any significant changes in the constitution would need to be discussed in the context of the politics of the era in which it happened which would be out of scope for an article about the rule book itself. Thryduulf (talk) 11:39, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Its called a "History" section, its normal in most articles.. This topic is notable, probably not that many people who are interested in it, but it is still notable. --TIAYN (talk) 14:53, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge -- Plain deletion is certainly inappropriate. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:36, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Why? Thryduulf (talk) 22:37, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 22:31, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Peterkingiron, Inappropriately nominated. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 04:33, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Davey2010: I'm going to have to ask you the same question, as Peterkingiron hasn't answered: Why is deletion inappropriate? Thryduulf (talk) 11:02, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Labour Party Rule Book is notable, and not just for Clause IV. So far as I can tell, the British Labour Party has allowed far more importance to its Rule Book than most political parties (certainly than the British Conservative Party), and internal disputes about the organisation of the Labour Party - about selection of parliamentary candidates, election of the Party leader, the relative size of trade union and individual membership representation at Party Conference, the existence of pressure groups within the Party, and so on - have almost always beeen framed around proposed changes to the Rule Book. And a number of these disputes have been discussed almost as widely outside the Labour Party, when they occurred and afterwards, as the ones about Clause IV. Several internal party groupings (the one that comes most to mind is the probably notable Campaign for Labour Party Democracy) have, indeed, focussed on proposing or opposing changes to Party rules almost to the exclusion of wider policy issues. Moreover, the argument that matters concerning Labour Party organisation and rules are adequately dealt with in Labour Party and History of the Labour Party does not really stand up - these probably rightly put their primary focus on Labour's governmental and external political record or on disputes about policy rather than on disputes about Party organisation which, while influenced by outside events, have often had a dynamic of their own. However, the almost unsourced article under discussion doesn't cover these either, and apparently never has done so. Wikipedia could do with a good and well-sourced article on this or a closely related topic but, at least currently, this isn't it. PWilkinson (talk) 00:52, 18 January 2014 (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.