Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Pensioners Party (Scotland)

Tally

As I see it -

6 wanted this article kept. 2 wanted it deleted (+ the nominator) 2 people wanted it merged. 1 - SmokeyJoe - wanted it either kept or merged.

These figures do not add up for a merger. I do not have strong feelings on this subject, but it should be noted that the majority voted for it to be kept, with one person putting in a double vote.--MacRusgail (talk) 15:12, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It should also be noted that the only source identified for this article gave it a brief mention in support of its relationship as a sister party to the SSCUP. If you wanted it kept as a separate article you should have provided sufficient sources to sustain it. If you have an issue with the decision of the closing admin opting to merge a {{singlesource}} article you can always take it up at deletion review.

Remember, Wikipedia is not a democracy. It is the weight of an argument that decides the outcome of a discussion, not the number of people that make single word votes. Road Wizard (talk) 17:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weight of what argument? In this case, we have a vote, which is held, and then ignored, begging the question of why there is such a vote in the first place. I think I am pretty qualified to speak about the Pensioners Party, as I am involved in Scottish politics myself (not this party by the way). It seems that some people's opinions are more equal than others on Wikipedia.

Wikipedia should be ruled by common sense, not bull headed bureaucracy.--MacRusgail (talk) 17:32, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have chosen to avoid the question of sources. Until I added the 1 source to the article, it was completely unreferenced and could have been deleted as failing WP:V. What did you do to support your position of Keep? If you have enough sources to sustain more than a single line of text then produce an article in user space and suggest a split of the SSCUP article to restore the merged article.

Complaining about "bull headed bureaucracy" will not help you if you are unwilling to put in the effort to support your position. Road Wizard (talk) 18:12, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to discuss an AfD, "The debate is not a vote; please make recommendations on the course of action to be taken, sustained by arguments." Your choice of not commenting on why you felt the article should have been kept would have rendered your "Keep" vote as next to meaningless. Even a position of "Keep per that other person above" would have had more weight than a single word. You may wish to bear this in mind when commenting on other XfDs. Regards. Road Wizard (talk) 18:23, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it's not a vote, what is it, and what is its purpose? I'm not interested in what gets decided in dark and obscure corners of Wikipedia, only providing a comprehensive coverage of things. Why this article stays while reality TV non-entities' entries remain after several years is a real mystery.--MacRusgail (talk) 22:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have already stated what it is. Please read the comments already provided.

For the third time, the key issue here is the lack of sources. With not enough sources to sustain more than a single sentence the reasons for refusing a merge with a related article are extremely weak. If you or any of the others had been able to expand the article with reliable sources then the chances of a merge would have been greatly reduced. There is no "dark and obscure corners of Wikipedia" here, this is a clear interpretation of WP:V, one of the three cornerstone policies of Wikipedia.

And again, as I stated previously, if you wish to dispute the decision by the closing admin you can take this to deletion review. It may help your case at review if you can provide more than the single source that I was able to find. Road Wizard (talk) 23:08, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have not stated what it is. There are plenty of dark and sticky corners of Wikipedia, where rules get made by a minority, and the rest are barely aware of them. I think this was much more worthy of a page than most of the trivia on wikipedia.--MacRusgail (talk) 15:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I have said in my original reply, this is "a discussion" and as I explained in a subsequent reply, "The debate is not a vote; please make recommendations on the course of action to be taken, sustained by arguments." If you are still unsure what AfD is after reading the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to discuss an AfD section I directed you to earlier, you may wish to try reading the Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Discussion section as well.

While you may consider AfD to be "dark and sticky" and of which you may be "barely aware", I do hope you are familiar with the key Verifiability policy. Articles without sufficient sources are subject to deletion, whether they are about a little fluffy toy or an organisation campaigning for improvements in the living standards of a section of the population. All articles need sources. "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth."

Do you have sufficient sources to sustain an article about this subject? If you do not have any more sources than the one that I was able to locate then this discussion is effectively meaningless and a waste of both your time and mine. From your constant evasion of the question of sources I can only assume that you do not have any to support your position.

Finally, as I stated previously, if you wish to dispute the decision by the closing admin you can take this to deletion review. Road Wizard (talk) 17:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm well aware of what AfD is, I'm just stating that Wikipedia has plenty of obscure pages, where people decide things on others behalf. Sources will take time to gather. As this is a recent phenomenon, most of the results will be in newpapers rather than books. --MacRusgail (talk) 17:56, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you are aware that AfD is not a vote then why are you trying to pretend that it is? Once you have enough sources to sustain the article there shouldn't be any problem with restoring it. Road Wizard (talk) 18:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My T'pence

I have only just spotted this talk page in my watchlist. As the nominator, this is my right of reply. I nominated this article after noticing that there was just one citation for an article which, it seemed from the text, was no longer active; or if it was, only in close conjunction with a sister party. As it was not a successful stand alone party, it was sailing close to the wind of WP:N, and my long lost (it seems!) notabily proposal for political parties.

The AfD seemed to head towards a merge. I am happy with this. The party does not seem to have had any electoral activity since, I am not sure if it even remains on the Register of Political Parties.

On the wider issue, AfD has never been about democracy, always consensus. The discussion here may have leaned towards "keep" on the headline figures but I feel the general consensus was to merge.

doktorb _words^deeds 17:47, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note from closing admin

This was all I had to do to merge the entirety of unique info from the Pensioners Party article. The choice to close this as a "merge" rather than a "keep" was settled by pragmatism. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 20:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]