Wikipedia:Deletion review/British National Party election results

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 Recreate.

British National Party election results[edit]

Page was deleted with minimal discussion and spurious reasons from original nominator. One contributor even commented that "I can't think of what criteria this breaks." The page WAS unreferenced, but this could have been addressed in a matter of minutes and has now been done (see: User:Emeraude/British National Party election results). It was also described as unencyclopaedic (with no reason given) and as a violation of BLP policy - absolute nonsense that would mean the deletion of every article that named a candidate in any democratic election!

The same "debate" also resulted in deletion of British National Front election results; revised version is at User:Emeraude/British National Front election results. I would also like to include that in this request for reinstatement on the same grounds. Emeraude (talk) 10:55, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The first couple of sections only mention the paper and the date, a proper source also mentions page numbers and article headlines (or if it is online URL and headlines). The idea that there are no parallel entries for other parties is a faulty reason since if such article should exist, one has to be the first. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Minimal discussion for deletion and the page can easily be sourced. For example results from 1983 onwards are online here and results prior to that online here Valenciano (talk) 11:23, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Allow recreation provided every entry is properly sourced. Unsourced content should be removed, and if the entire article is unsourced it should be deleted. PhilKnight (talk) 12:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note Entire contents of both articles is sourced - see versions on my user pages indicated above. Emeraude (talk) 12:44, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at WP:CITE. PhilKnight (talk) 12:47, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn Minimal discussion for deletion. From what I have seen of the NF test page it would make a fine article, if the BNP article would be of the same quality then that too would be worthy. The NF article documents the rise and fall of a far-right British party, perhaps this could be better done with text or graphs but they could be added onto this skeleton article quite easily.-EchetusXe (talk) 14:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On the deletion review page, there is an instruction "Deletion Review is to be used where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question. This should be attempted first – courteously invite the admin to take a second look". I haven't noticed this discussion taking place. While I'm aware that some users consider this an optional step, I would appreciate if the nominator could please explain why he omitted it (or, if there was a discussion that I missed, point it out)? I would also be grateful to have details of why this nomination was made only now for an AFD over four months ago. Stifle (talk) 15:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I did not omit a request to the admn: See User talk:MBisanz/Archive 4#Undeletion request. Why has it taken me a while? Come on, there is more to life than Wikipedia!! Emeraude (talk)
  - Thank you. Endorse deletion as a unanimous decision; nothing has been pointed out to indicate that the deletion policy wasn't followed. Stifle (talk) 19:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse but allow recreation of a reliably sourced version. There was a clear consensus to delete at AfD based on established policies including those on verifiablility and biographies of living people; a reliably sourced version would seem to largely satisfy the issues brought up and would require a new AfD discussion if a user thought the content should still be deleted. Guest9999 (talk) 17:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. Apart from the bizarre "I can't think of what criteria this breaks" (but let's delete it anyway), the only rationale offered was that the article was unsourced. The correct response to an unsourced article is to tag it as {{unreferenced}}, and move to deletion only if references are not forthcoming after a period of time. A few simple checks would have shown that the article could quite easily be sourced, and since there were only three responses to the nomination and none of them addressed this crucial question, the closing admin should have relisted rather than closing as "delete". Whether or not the original decision is overturned, I see no reason to oppose restoration of the version to which Emeraude has now added references. The article should use <ref></ref> tags rather than listing sources in the table, but that's a stylistic tweak. Congrats to Emeraude on rescuing this article, which serves an important encylopedic purpose of tracking the electoral fortunes of a highly controversial minority party. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:46, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn per BrownHairedGirl.--John (talk) 19:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your comments BrownHairedGirl. I take on board your point about <ref></ref> and that's easy to do. Can I ask that contributors note that I have requested that two articles be reinstated, since both were deleted by the same AfD in the first place. Emeraude (talk) 10:45, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Closing admin If there are sources, then sure recreate it, but at the time of the AFD it was unanimous in support of deletion and did run the full five days. MBisanz ^talk 15:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. I will recreate and incorporate the helpful suggestions made above. The original AfD debate was, as you say, unanimous. That does not make it correct. Also, I was away from Wikipdeia for severeal weeks at the time so the five-day spell was irrelevant. As contributors here have noted, the arguments used then were totally flawed and there was no attempt made to invite editors of the articles to give their views. I am aware that this is a courtesy, not a requirement, but it would have been useful if the original closing admin had taken any of this into account. Emeraude (talk) 15:22, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. I share the concern that the closing admin relied on unanimity. Unanimous support for invalid reason is not grounds for deletion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:01, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]