Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Labour Party Rule Book (2nd nomination)

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. No sourcing to back up the assertions of notability Star Mississippi 18:55, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Labour Party Rule Book

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

No independent source to show WP:GNG, nor any indication how this political party rulebook stands out from other political party rulebooks in an encyclopedically significant way (i.e. WP:ROTM). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:24, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and United Kingdom. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:12, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure why this is being proposed for deletion. This is one of the most significant documents of any major political party in the world. There's a whole strand of literature on its clause IV alone: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=labour+party+clause+IV&btnG= Wik idea 13:54, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A single sub-part of this being notable is not grounds for having an article on the rest (notability, unlike the British monarchy, is not inherited, either downwards or upwards). This is one of the most significant documents of any major political party in the world seems like personal hyperbole and probably shows how this is WP:BIAS too. Most political parties have rule books / constitutions / ... Without a reliable source explicitly saying how the whole of it is a significant document (and not just a part of it which is already covered in its own article); this doesn't go on Wikipedia. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:02, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Its very significant, but I'm not sure it needs an article of its own. Rathfelder (talk) 15:12, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Highly significant document, and that reaches beyond Clause 4 and goes to areas such as candidate selection, leadership elections, party conference and the National Executive Committee. It's the sort of thing that may well be important in a future news story for an aspect that's not covered in its own article in Wikipedia. It's also useful to have an article talking about the general nature of this important document. JASpencer (talk) 16:41, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Highly significant document" requires verifiable evidence of such significance. While the document is certainly important for Labour internal affairs, that doesn't mean that the document (or the internal Labour affairs) are worthy of an encyclopedia article. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:55, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails to meet WP:GNG per nom - notablility provided by available sources is almost entirely limited to Clause IV and the selection process for leaders. As WP:NOPAGE states, "A decision to cover a notable topic only as part of a broader page does not in any way disparage the importance of the topic." I would argue that the above commenters are right that this is an important document but its importance can and should be shown with reliable sources within articles like Labour Party (UK) and History of the Labour Party (UK). It does not warrant its own article as it fails to meet GNG by itself. SamWilson989 (talk) 03:04, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:38, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree with the last sentence of the previous AfD discussion. "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" as it currently has no independent sources. TSventon (talk) 16:16, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:05, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:OR. Again, something might be important, but unless it's covered in depth by multiple, reliable, secondary sources, it's just original research or an essay, none of which we've ever accepted. We need to meet WP:GNG for an encyclopedia. The above argument to keep it in its current shape is untenable. Please find sources, quickly, if you want to keep it so badly. I have located a few possible sources at Google books, Google news, and Google scholar. I am willing to change my mind to userfy if someone will adapt this mess. Bearian (talk) 17:26, 8 June 2022 (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.