Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Randwick-Botany Greens

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Kevin (talk) 09:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Randwick-Botany Greens

[edit]
Randwick-Botany Greens (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

In the same way that Wikipedia draws the limit at councillors by only allowing federal and state MPs, I believe wikipedia shouldn't go any further than a state level when it comes to the political party (see this revision of the greens template) Timeshift (talk) 04:02, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It may be worth noting that the Greens party structure in NSW is such that party members are members of the local group and the state group is basically an alliance of these. That means that the local groups have far greater importance than in other parties and in fact form the constituent parts of the party rather than being merely branches. Local groups generally have their own constitutions and are self-determining in regards to policy. I believe this is also the case in Victoria. It may not be the case in other states and territories. I do agree however that the more recent edits to the page (not by me) lack appropriate encyclopaedic quality and require editing. Sambauers (talk) 04:24, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I agree that the template blows out when including these, and it need not include the local groups. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sambauers (talk • contribs) 04:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you cite where a local (non-fed/state) group has achieved wikipedic noteability? Timeshift (talk) 04:35, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Particular notability has not been established. Since there are over 50 such local groups in NSW this could be the start of an avalanche. WWGB (talk) 06:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an incomplete list of local political party precedents from the UK...

Local council level details in Greater London are maintained in detail. The fore-mentioned limits on political articles are being smashed in this case. Check the number of sub-categories and pages listed in this category for example.

Another example, councillors in New York City - Membership of the New York City Council

Many lists of mayors exist on Wikipedia, many of whom have pages, e.g. List of mayors of Phoenix, Arizona

Here's a random "sub-councillor" from Capetown, South Africa, Simon Grindrod. Found via this list of councillors - Members of the Cape Town City Council.

This is from a fairly brief search and is by no means comprehensive, I'm sure there are must be more examples of local politics articles. I appreciate that you don't wish to be inundated with articles for review, but there are clearly precedents for this level of detail on Wikipedia. And considering that up until this point this article is the first example of this sort of entry in Wikipedia for a local party in Australia I wouldn't think that you will find a major influx of new articles at this level. Sambauers (talk) 01:20, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't change my view, non-noteable. Timeshift (talk) 04:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While acknowledging the extensive research undertaken by Sambauers, none of the above examples relate directly to the situation of the article in question. Randwick-Botany Greens refers to a local (that is, sub-capital) branch of a state or national organisation. There is still no reason to report the workings of a grassroots, non-notable group. WWGB (talk) 06:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The above examples are not analogous and are in no way precedents. The three British examples listed are all political parties in their own right: IKHHC has an MP in Westminster. Randwick-Botany Greens is not a stand alone party, merely a party sub-branch. Bush shep (talk) 10:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Past precedents don't matter for this article anyway, as the author has failed to provide any reliable references that mention the "Randwick-Botany Greens" as a single entity. Reliable references must be provided first, before we can even consider step #2 about past precedents.-Lester 07:13, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As a non notable local branch unless evidence otherwise is provided. Nuttah (talk) 10:20, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The UK examples are acceptable analogies because the Randwick-Botany Greens (as is the case with many of the Greens NSW groups) is a political organisation in it's own right. If the NSW Greens was disolved tomorrow, many of it's affiliated groups (not "branches") would still exist as individual political parties, many with their own rules, bylaws and constitutions, like the Randwick-Botany Greens.
It appears that there is a fundamental misunderstanding prevalent in the comments here as to the organisational structure of the Greens in Australia. It is organised from the bottom-up, not the top-down. Any mention in the mainstream media of contests in the Federal seat of Kingsford-Smith or the state electorates of Coogee or Maroubra that mention the Greens is reporting on the direct activities of the Randwick-Botany Greens. They select their own candidates, they organise their own preferences, they co-ordinate their own campaigns. Federal Greens Senator Kerry Nettle was a member of the Randwick-Botany Greens when she was elected to the senate and of course by association she was a part of the NSW Greens and the Australian Greens. The group also succeeded in producing metropolitan Sydney's first Green Mayor. I feel these activities and links are notable enough. The reason you will not find the name "Randwick-Botany Greens" specifically used in sources is because it is consistently short-handed to "The Greens" in the major press.
One should acknowledge that the organisational structure of the Greens NSW is clearly laid out in the NSW Greens article here on Wikipedia and the publicly available NSW Greens constitution (See section 2.3 and 2.4 specifically), and to discredit a local group goes against these premises and the principles of the organisation you are attempting to describe here on Wikipedia. To discard the local groups as "branches" is counter to the origin and structure of the NSW Greens and creates a false and possibly even biased POV of the NSW Greens. Sambauers (talk) 13:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have to add that the argument for deletion has been reduced to the notability guideline. Non-notability is not grounds for deletion per-se Wikipedia:Criteria_for_inclusion#Articles_not_satisfying_the_notability_guidelines, at worst the article needs to be marked with Template:Notability. Sources help create notability but this is an ambiguous situation. I am being asked to prove the existence of an organisation before I can apply precedents. This is nonsense. Detractors here have linked to pages listing the organisation as a member group of the Greens NSW in support of their arguments (calling it a "branch"), coupled with the statements in the NSW Greens constitution, that evidence supports the group's existence as an autonomous body. I am working on adding further notable evidence to the article keeping in mind the draft guidelines for political party notability (Wikipedia:Notability_(political_parties)) which seems less strict than the burden of evidence being applied in this discussion. Sambauers (talk) 18:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Sam but the consensus here is clearly for deletion. Local branches are deemed to be non-noteable, the page will soon be deleted. Timeshift (talk) 20:36, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is majority opinion but no consensus if I still don't agree. Yes, I am blocking consensus. This is supposed to be a debate, not a vote, and I am supposed to be offered the opportunity to improve the article to appease the objections stated here. The main objection appears to be that it is not notable, and lack of evidence of notability in itself is not grounds for deletion. As mentioned in the draft guidelines for notability of a political party, there are many more criteria by which a political organisation can be deemed notable than just press articles. Relative success in elections is one example and the article now covers that in summary (as a detailed overview would be excessive) and cites reference material. I am willing to take direction on how I can improve the article. I can easily add sources from at least one 3rd party media outlet, but I fear that they it won't be considered good enough (namely, Southern Courier - Established 1918, readership approx. 102,000). I feel I am acting in good faith, my last edit was aimed at removing non-neutral POV. From further reading of guidelinesI am attempting to remove self-published references. I am willing to work with anyone who is able to bring this article up to notability and NPOV standards, but I am not willing to accept that it is inherently not notable. Sambauers (talk) 00:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus is to delete. One objection, especially from the article creator, does not change that. I await the textbook deletion of this inherantly non-noteable article. Timeshift (talk) 00:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. No misunderstanding. The party organisation is no different to the Conservative Party (UK). The consensus is still that branches, local affiliates, or whatever you want to call them, tend not to be notable unless good evidence can be shown. Nuttah (talk) 08:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me while I complain... I'm sure you will delete this page, but you really need to review your collective process. It would help if you simply said that you were going to delete the page and there is nothing I can do about it rather than sending me on a wild goose chase for precedents, which were found, and pretending that the article would be kept if it was supported by certain types of sources. I have referred to Wikipedia documents regarding notability of political parties and presented evidence of the groups autonomy for naught. This article is verifiable, is not original research, does not violate copyright and has no POV. The deletion is based on a single editors belief that "wikipedia shouldn't go any further than a state level when it comes to the political party" and not any precedent or policy. Consensus has been determined by a head count rather than the strength of the arguments, this goes against Wikipedia:Deletion_guidelines_for_administrators#Rough_consensus. Not once have I been offered assistance to bring the article up to an acceptable standard. I have good reason to refer this to deletion review, but I won't bother, clearly there is little opposition to limiting the scope of political articles in Australia. I will be a good Wikipedian and make sure that all trace of Randwick-Botany Greens and any other "non-notable" local content I can find in my local government area is removed or marked for deletion. Sambauers (talk) 15:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't remove this redirect page, it should be Speedy Deleted [1] Sambauers (talk) 15:55, 11 August 2008 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Randwick-Botany_Greens&oldid=1070242275"