Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Socialist Party of Great Britain (Reconstituted)

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 no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 00:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was the one who originally created this article, but upon further research, I strongly believe that I was mistaken to do so. The principal reason is that this organization, if it can even be called that, is non-notable. Apparently they have only three active members (M. Sansum, H. Baldwin, and R. Lloyd, all of London). They are not and have never been registered as a political party in the Electoral Commission's Register of Political Parties, and therefore have never run candidates in elections. They do not have and have never had a street address, instead taking mail from a PO box or a member's home address. They have neither a telephone number nor an Internet presence. They do not even have a bank account in their own name (as I found out when I mail-ordered their pamphlet). There's no record of them having published anything with an ISSN or an ISBN. In short, for all practical purposes this group is simply three disgruntled ex-members of the Socialist Party of Great Britain whose main activity is to attack the SPGB through word of mouth and a photocopied A5 pamphlet. —Psychonaut 15:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• keep: Obviously a group that actually existed, and brings out a publication. The exact membership figures in this posting is not verifiable. Albeit small, the split of SPGB had reprecussions on the WSM at large, including the expulsion of the Indian section of the WSM. --Soman 16:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There was never a "split" in the Party; there was simply an expulsion of a few undemocratic members in 1991. As to the membership figures, it's indeed verifiable to anyone who (like me) has attended one of their "meetings". For anyone who doesn't live in London, however, it's difficult to verify that this tiny group exists at all! So perhaps we can add non-verifiable to the reasons for deletion, since you brought it up. —Psychonaut 16:11, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm sorry to hear that this grouplet disappointed your expectations. However, you yourself confirm that is is a political group that hold public meetings and that publish a periodical. As to the definition of a split, I'd say that the expulsions clearly qualifies. --Soman 16:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • First my word isn't good enough for you, then it is. Well, let's set my word aside for the moment. I challenge anyone to find some third-party publications, apart from my own Wikipedia article, which document the existence of this group. If the group is sufficiently notable to appear in a few third-party books, newspapers, and/or encyclopedias, then I will concede that it's notable enough to appear in Wikipedia. But after having scoured Google and my local libraries for information about them and come up empty-handed, I'm convinced that there's too little evidence to meet Wikipedia's notability and verifiability standards. —Psychonaut 16:42, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the splitters. Seriously, this would be just one of an extremely large number of leftist groups in the UK and does not appear to be notable in any way. MLA 16:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, wikipedia is not paper. no need to delete articles on actually existing, non-prank, political groups. --Soman 16:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Hi, yes there is. There are a number of reasons why something that exists might not have a wikipedia article. My recommendation of delete is based on lack of notability, this is normally behind my delete recommendations at AfD. Let's not turn this into a discussion of inclusionism vs deletionism. MLA 08:54, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Totally nonnotable. ---Charles 17:42, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete just because we have the disk space for the article doesn't mean it belongs here. The article may be verifiable, but it is not, as of now, verified. Show me some proof that this group is more than three people, and that the aforementioned "paper" is more than just a glorified zine. The burden of proof is on those wanting to keep the article. --djrobgordon 19:22, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - the article can be verified by reference to their magazine and articles passim. The notability is of interest to those who engage in leftwing trainspotting, groups like the ICC, CWO, and a host of other well known (in trainspotter circles) fractions, factions, grupuscles, etc. would also be excluded despite the part they play in the political ecology. I could add at least one more name to the list of active members, and they scertainly once had more, so there is historical interest --Red Deathy 08:40, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Extremely strong keep. There may be many parties on the far left but their infinite varieties are highly instructive about the state of left-wing politics. The original SPGB is the longest standing far left party of all (1904). This group may not be so large now, but has previously had a significant enough following. It is covered in Paul Mercer's Directory of British Political Organisations and in Barberis, McHugh and Tyldesley's magnum opus. It used to run press adverts attacking the "Socialist Party of Clapham". The reason they are not registered with the Electoral Commission is that (1) the SPGB is and their registration would be ruled out for being confusing; (2) they haven't run any candidates in elections and don't need to. David | Talk 08:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further to that I have added the Barberis, McHugh and Tyldesley reference to the article, and also a reference from a book written by someone of no very great account which also makes reference to them. David | Talk 19:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this small but easily verifiable party. Keresaspa 12:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - But with some reservations. The family tree of British Socialism, and the scisms can sometimes be mindbending. I would certainly favour merging it in some way with the SPGB article, if both parties were willing. Mike33 12:24, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd happily accept merger (it could mean adding in a few of the otehr splinters from teh SPGB over the years)...--Red Deathy 12:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Me too. Now that David has provided some third-party references to this group, I concede that they are notable enough to mention on Wikipedia. However, I still doubt that they're notable enough for their own article. Perhaps incorporation into the main SPGB article, along with the other splinter groups briefly mentioned in the Socialist Standard centenary issue, is the best option. —Psychonaut 14:13, 12 July 2006 (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.