Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Northern Independence Party

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 delete. Going with deletes here. I'm happy to draftify if someone wants to merge anything from the article. However, none of the keeps really presented rationale behind sourcing aside from one user stating that it's been mentioned in regional publications. Thanks for keeping things civil and respecting this decision. Missvain (talk) 17:09, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Independence Party

Northern Independence Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected csp |username}}.

Wikipedia is not a Gazetteer of Political Parties. This group are not-notable, is one of those parties which breaks GNG and ORG and similar policies. Notable coverage is minimal and editors appear to be broadly linked to the Party with little to no independent coverage. An article which is mostly promotion, and not achievement, is not an article to keep. doktorb _words^deeds 12:41, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. doktorb _words^deeds 12:41, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. doktorb _words^deeds 12:41, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. doktorb _words^deeds 12:41, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not even registered (though that need not, in itself, be grounds for deletion) and seems to be no more than a wishful thought on the part of a person or small group. (And not all editors are "broadly linked to the Party", thank you.) Emeraude (talk) 13:17, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Already found five sources that help it pass GNG. Editors links to the party is pure conjecture. "Wishful thought" is a bit
  WP:CRYSTALBALL, isn't it? Nonsense nomination. ItsKesha (talk) 14:31, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Agree with ItsKesha. This may be a small movement but is certainly a notable movement as the media sources prove. "Wishful thought" is a entirly subjective opinion by Emeraude. NDNSWMI (talk) 20 November 2020 — Preceding undated comment added 12:50, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete,
  nothing lasting. Geschichte (talk) 22:00, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Emeraude is incorrect to cite registration as a requirement for a political party in the United Kingdom. Even if NIP does not register with the electoral commission this is not a requirement for a party to form. "Registration of a political party is not compulsory and you can only apply to register a party if you have an intention to contest elections" [1]. Moreover, Geschichte is incorrect to refer to the British television coverage (ITV) and a major national newspaper (The Independent) as trivial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vasey2020 (talk • contribs) 12:21, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

— Vasey2020 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Reply: I did not "cite registration as a requirement for a political party in the United Kingdom" - it isn't. The point I made is antirely valid. Please do not misrepresent. Emeraude (talk) 12:42, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is a legitimate movement growing at a pace due to the strong feeling of people who identify as Northumbrians. To delete this article would be tantamount to cancel culture initiated by someone who simply disagrees with the politics of the Northern Independence Party, which should not stop others learning about it. Kinkyfish (talk) 14:17, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep "I'm sure there are many cases of frivolous secessionism, it certainly has been in Norway as well, i.e. both Western Norway and Northern Norway which gained some news coverage, but nothing lasting." like has been said it not the job of wikipedia to foretell collapse of a movement if it fades to nothing then delete it if it achieves nothing before it fades but it is getting picked up by UK media and is gaining momentum --82.46.202.229 (talk) 14:51, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

— 82.46.202.229 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Keep It is clearly politically motivated to seek to delete an article on the claim that The Independent, ITV, Vice magazine, The Express, talkRADIO and a whole range of regional papers – including The Northern Echo – are not "Independent Coverage." NIP is notable as a new party having featured so strongly in a vast array of independent media. I would suggest it is this attempt to delete the entry that is politically motivated. I see no evidence that the editors are 'broadly linked to the party' Any commentator arguing the case for deletion that tries to suggest national press coverage in UK-wide newspapers and television is not good enough for Wikipedia, is very clearly politically motivated. The Daily Express is a national newspaper and right-wing – coverage is not only sympathetic.^[2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vasey2020 (talk • contribs) 14:52, 21 November 2020 (UTC) — Duplicate vote: Vasey2020 (talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above.[reply]
• Delete per
  WP:RS. The registration as a political party itself is not meeting notability criteria.--Ahmetlii (talk) 15:02, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Comment apparently you're completley wrong about the sources being YouTube and Twitter. ItsKesha (talk) 17:36, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete after looking at the sources, this seems to fail
  WP:NOTNEWS simultaneously, and seems largely promotional in nature. SportingFlyer T·C 21:21, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Comment To refer to British television coverage, a national newspapers like The Independent and the Daily Express as "promotional in nature" is evidently incorrect.[3] Vasey2020 (talk) 09:44, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm referring not to the sources but instead to
      WP:NORG's heightened notability standards. SportingFlyer T·C 11:49, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply
      ]
• Create
  Northern independence or Northern England independence page similar to the London independence page; merge and have a section dedicated to the party. — (Not logged in at the moment) 21:26, 21 November 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:58C:C100:32B0:F570:F027:FE64:4DCB (talk
  )
• Merge relevant parts to new Northern England Independence (or similar) article. The wider movement seems notable in itself, but the party (which isn't even registered with the Electoral Commission) is definitely not. PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 22:54, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There is now an article for
    Northern Independence, which covers historical and recent pushes for autonomy and independence for the North of England - Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:30, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Strong keep pass GNG and sources are GTG. Mr-5 / ^{M ✉ / C🖋} 09:59, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There's been a lot of discussion so far about the sources given and GNG, so I used
  WP:TOOSOON which I agree with - this may become a more notable political party, however, it's too soon to say if it will or not. Seagull123 Φ 16:32, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Source assessment table: prepared by User:Seagull123
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG ?
Sunderland Echo		Same article as source #8 from the Blackpool Gazette		✔ Yes
The Independent			~ Article's main focus is on the concept of "Northern Independence", but uses the party('s leader) as a way of discussing this concept	~ Partial
Vice		? No consensus on reliability per WP:RSP	Article about possible northern independence; very brief mention of the party	✘ No
Yorkshire Bylines		? I've never heard of this website before, their Twitter account calls them "Independent citizen journalism" - so possibly unreliable	Article discusses the party, but devotes at least half to previous proposals for regional devolution	? Unknown
Red Pepper	Appears to be written by the party - a lot of use of "we believe..." etc	? Written by the party on this website.		✘ No
Redaction Politics		? Never heard of the website before; their Twitter account has about 400 followers, so it's unlikely to be a really reliable source		? Unknown
Northern Echo				✔ Yes
Blackpool Gazette		Same article as source #1 from the Sunderland Echo		✔ Yes
The Alternative UK	? It appears to be about the Red Pepper article (source #5) which is by the party	? Again, never heard of this website before - their Twitter has ~2.7k followers		? Unknown
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

• • Question sorry, are you actually using Twitter followers as a measure of reliability? If so I'll see if I can get Katy Perry and Rihanna to comment on the issue. ItsKesha (talk) 17:25, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ItsKesha: the reason I mentioned the number of Twitter followers - which I admit I didn't explain before - is due to the reason that I had never heard of the websites before, and I couldn't find anything about those websites elsewhere. Therefore, I looked at their social media accounts to see what they were saying/what was being said about them. For example, the "Redaction News" one, as it has only around 400 followers, this suggests that it isn't a reliable source, as if it was, it would likely have more. I know this isn't an 'official' way of measuring reliability; but in the absence of anything else I could find about these sources outside of their own websites/social media accounts, it is useful in demonstrating that these are likely just low-traffic blog-style 'news' sources. Seagull123 Φ 17:44, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, to add to what I just said, there's nothing (that I could find) which suggests that Yorkshire Bylines, Red Pepper, Redaction Politics, or The Alternative UK are reliable sources for Wikipedia's purposes - that's why I marked them as of questionable reliability, as there was also nothing I could find which suggested they're definitely unreliable. Seagull123 Φ 17:51, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BRB, just checking if the Daily Mail (2.5 million Twitter followers) has said anything yet. Oh. Why not simply take the sources in good faith until you find something which suggests otherwise? And if you're accusing these sites of being unreliable, are you also accusing me of being an unreliable editor for using these sources? If you've found a reason these sources are unreliable, other than "I've never heard of them, they have a low number of Twitter followers", I'd very much love to read it. Because this just seems like needless gatekeeping to me. ItsKesha (talk) 19:01, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Daily Mail is a deprecated source on Wikipedia so we would likely discount them anyway. @ItsKesha: and @Seagull123: - if you haven't heard of those websites before, they are likely not notable enough. My Spidey senses are tingling in regards to "The Alternative UK", in particular. Just because an article has tonnes of sources doesn't mean it should be kept: those sources could be rehashed press releases or blogs, both of which shouldn't satisfy AfD decisions either. doktorb _words^deeds 20:46, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't matter if the sources are notable, that's not even the debate here. Whether you've heard of a source does not affect the reliability of the source. ItsKesha (talk) 23:17, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, yes, if the sources are not notable (blogs, unknown or obscure sites, self-published resources etc) then they hold less credibility and weight than notable sources (established newspapers, periodicals etc). A press release rehashed across hundreds of sites, perhaps word-for-word, is not likely to do the case for GNG any good. doktorb _words^deeds 23:32, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll help you all out here - Yorkshire Bylines is a Northern (ooh, biased!) offshoot of Byline Times, which was set up by Peter Jukes. The Alternative is an English offshoot of Danish political party Alternativet, set up by Uffe Elbæk. And RedAction is a new media with a full team of editors and journalists who have written and worked for other reputable sources. The information is easily available on all three websites. But you know, they don't have hundreds of thousands of followers on Twitter! ItsKesha (talk) 01:02, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@

self-published sources. Seagull123 Φ 17:26, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

• Note:
  WP:AFC, and therefore may be interested in this discussion. Seagull123 Φ 16:37, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep Thank you for the ping. I do believe that this passes
  WP:INDEPTH coverage given, much more than a routine announcement. The coverage is primarily local, but the mention in the Independent helps in establishing national significance as well. Zoozaz1 talk 17:13, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• The Independence piece was only an interview with the founder. It's not
  WP:NORG. I understand why you accepted, but I would have declined this at AfC. SportingFlyer T·C 20:56, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Re: Merging, I thought it might be worth pointing out the Separatism in the United Kingdom article. It has a (I assume new) section on Northern England independence as a movement. — (Not logged in at the moment) 04:20, 23 November 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:58C:C100:32B0:9DAC:871F:9AF4:B909 (talk)
• Keep, as it passes
  WP:GNG, the local newspapers this party received coverage in, such as the the Blackpool Gazette, serve areas with large enough populations to be considered reliable in my view. Devonian Wombat (talk) 03:18, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Borderline keep. Multiple RS sources referring to this party, and plenty of regional papers. Seems to be a legitiamte lobby group for a noted and current issue. The Northern movement, however impractical and unlikely, does have some legitimate support. Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:44, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This seems to be a pretty clear Keep to me - informative references, seems to pass notability without that much question. I also fixed the piece that was tagged as unreferenced, as the sentence in question comes from the article in the Sunderland Echo.--Concertmusic (talk) 17:47, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Please note that I have already provided my input and vote above. Having said that, I would like to attempt to address a couple of points made early in the debate. There is a reference to TOOSOON, as well as one on 'frivolous secessionism' and 'wishful thinking'. Please refer to the recognized and significantly funded initiative Northern Powerhouse, which is connected to this party and its goals per this source, which is not yet incorporated into the article. I would argue that there is a clear recognition of the real dangers of a northern movement in the vein of the NIP. Maybe food for thought to alleviate those concerns.--Concertmusic (talk) 20:45, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable and relevant. Wjfox2005 (talk) 12:56, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Think it passes GNG. — Czello 08:17, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -has received significant media attention and is clearly notable at this point. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 15:04, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as other editors have mentioned,
  Northern independence now exists, though it is itself being considered for deletion - my personal thoughts are that, as YorkshireLad suggests on the AfD page, something like Devolution to the North of England or Devolution of Northern England
  would be a better choice of article title, as it's more exacting whilst covering a range of opinions on devolution at the same time. 'Northern independence' is pretty generic. As the 9th Doctor said, lots of planets have a North...

In regards to this article - two of the sources are for the flag colours, the rest seem to be general "what would an independent Northern England look like?" pieces, and the rest just seem to mention the party's new existence. It'd be much better suited to a subheading on an article thoroughly covering the different viewpoints and movements for devolution of some kind in the North of England. If NIP go on to be more notable, then this article will likely be re-created, but for now, as none of us happen to be

Mystic Meg, I cannot see it being notable enough to stay.--Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 18:35, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

• Comment As the nominator of this AfD I feel I should say two things. Firstly, I still believe this article should be deleted. Secondly, I can't remember any of my previous AfD being this contentious and I thank editors for remaining (mostly) civil. doktorb _words^deeds 19:34, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I will note that while
  Northern Independence now has its own article (I created it), its likely to have it's name changed and the focus changed, away from Northern Independence specifically (as part of the conditions of the AFD)....which means merging this article with it *may* not be such an obvious solution to deleting this article. Deathlibrarian (talk) 04:06, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. It's a close call but I don't think this group quite meets the notability standard yet. Most of the sources are either unreliable sources, or are passing mentions in articles about the more general concept of northern cessationism. I'm leary of local newspaper references conferring notability too, sources like this can certainly be useful for adding information, but if you open a new bar your local newspaper will dedicate an article to it, and that won't be notable either. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 09:09, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Still a delete - I don't know how someone could close this as delete, but it still should be deleted. This is a non-notable fake political party that still fails
  WP:NORG and that has fallen out of the news cycle. SportingFlyer T·C 18:22, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Merge into
  Northern independence, where it is already mentioned and discussed. Until anything is official should not be recreated either! (for clarity: in a keep or delete dichotomy, this would be a delete but I strongly prefer merge over delete!) gidonb (talk) 01:24, 24 December 2020 (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.