Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Socialist Democracy (Ireland)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 merge‎ to People's Democracy (Ireland). After three re-lists, not enough consensus to keep it as a standalone article, but a consensus that the material should be preserved in the predecessor party article. (non-admin closure) Aszx5000 (talk) 20:00, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Socialist Democracy (Ireland) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article was created in 2005 and has barely been advanced since then. When the article was created in 2005, the creator themselves noted the organisation had "less than 10 members" [1]. One can only guess if it has any members left almost 20 years later. Besides not being notable/significant, the entire article is based on one primary source, a website/blog that has managed to continue. Other than that "official" website, there is (seemingly) no other source available on the entire internet, reliable or otherwise, that discusses the subject. This is (seemingly) the only other source [2] for their existence; holding two documents relating to the organisation.

Per WP:GNG, I don't think the subject article has significant coverage, nor reliable sources, nor secondary sources, nor sources really independent of the subject (The left archive source is really two pieces of primary material rather than secondary). I don't know that the article can be much improved since I don't see any coverage at all in secondary sources.

The article claims it stood a candidate in the 2011 Northern Ireland Assembly election, however, sources do not support this claim [3], [4], even though they go into minute detail and note that a "Pro Capitalism Party" gained 28 votes. CeltBrowne (talk) 07:40, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: The article was created in 2005 and has barely been advanced since then. For the record: There are countless revisions throughout the article's history with at least one edit per year, in most cases many more than that. The phrasing used here makes the impression that the article has almost never been edited besides its author, which is not the case. In fact, it seems that after Laurel Lodged made a series of edits on May 20, 2018, the article has seen significantly increased attention and since grew from around 3,600 bytes to over 7,000, faster than the article has grown in its entire history.WhichUserAmI 20:08, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 12:48, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Regardless of the current status of Socialist Democracy as a functioning organisation, as the successor to Peoples Democracy - an undeniably important group in the Civil Rights movement and the Troubles - SD must be accounted for in the historical record. Don Meade — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blarneystar (talkcontribs) 19:46, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Amakuru (talk) 13:39, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:47, 8 June 2023 (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.