Talk:Something New (political party)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Open, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.OpenWikipedia:WikiProject OpenTemplate:WikiProject OpenOpen articles

Politics of the United Kingdom Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics: Political parties Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Political parties task force (assessed as Low-importance).

The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.

Floppy~enwiki (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article. This user has declared a connection. (declared here)

This article references a source that one of the article's contributors wrote or published. Citing oneself is allowed on Wikipedia, but may represent a conflict of interest. Contributors should be careful not to place undue weight on their own work, and are discouraged from excessive self-citation. Guidelines relevant to this situation include Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and WP:SELFPUBLISHED.

Andrewdwilliams (talk · contribs) — Williams, Andrew (15 Oct 2014). "Something New for Politics?". Institute of Opinion. Retrieved 15 February 2015.

Andrewdwilliams—Williams, Andrew. "Time for Something New?". Whippersnapper blog. Retrieved 15 February 2015.

Floppy~enwiki (talk · contribs)—Smith, James. "Designing a better democracy". Something New. Retrieved 3 April 2015.

Notability[edit]

Please try to find some independent reliable sources that speak about the notability of this party. Currently the key sources are articles by a prominent party member. Is it registered with the election commission? Are the candidates registered with the returning officers? Does it have more than a passing mention in the national press? --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 15:41, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrewdwilliams: One passing mention of the party in the local paper is not going to make it notable by the standards here. I suggest you move the article to your sandbox, and post it as and when the party gets significant coverage. It is normal for single election parties only in a small number of constituencies to be omitted from Wikipedia, as there is just not enough published about them to write about them fairly. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 18:36, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Hroðulf: Okay. I'd like to establish that although I have an interest in Something New, I am not a party member, or a prominent one at that. I am assured that more articles on the party are on the way, but until then, I will do as you say and move it to the sandbox. Andrewdwilliams (talk) 12:01, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Hroðulf: I've added two more links to independent coverage. I am the party leader, so I admit there is a conflict of interest there, but I've only added the citations, so I hope that's OK. Floppy (talk) 22:59, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for disclosing your COI. It makes sense to read the guidelines at WP:COI, as the real world is sometimes even stricter about Wikipedia conflicts for politicians than the community of editors.

The Mancunian Matters article will probably have some weight in an Articles for Deletion discussion. It is possible that that one article, alongside the Electoral Commission registration, is enough to keep the article. I will delete the notability banner. However, the more independent significant coverage, the best for establishing relevance to the encyclopedia. Parties on the Fringe on the other hand, seems to be a group blog, which is unlikely to have any weight in a deletion discussion.

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 12:47, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New References[edit]

I won't add this myself due to COI as mentioned above, but details of the open manifesto process have now been published in a Design Commission report at http://www.policyconnect.org.uk/apdig/research/essay-collection-designing-democracy, which might add to the notability if someone wants to add it as a reference. Floppy (talk) 10:29, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Floppy: Looks relevant. What was the editorial policy for the book? What conditions did your paper have to meet to be included? Brief answers to those would speak to notability. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 13:16, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Hroðulf: Our contribution was invited by the compilers of the report; it wasn't something we submitted an entry to, but something we were invited to contribute to, if that answers the editorial and conditions questions? The collection was compiled by the Design Commission, which is a part of the All Party Parliamentary Design and Innovation Group, a group of MPs and Lords in the UK Parliament who look at design and innovation issues. It includes essays from many other notable contributors, including the Speaker of the House of Commons, John Bercow, so we're in quite esteemed company in there! Floppy (talk) 22:55, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed Andrewdwilliams added a paragraph about the Design Commission essay. I think we can consider the notability discussion resolved. By the way, thanks for Floppy and Andrew for your openness: I have posted banners at the top of the talk page to document your declared connections to the article and its sources. Don't be alarmed by the odd blue warning triangles: it seems to be the current fashion for keeping declared COI above board. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 16:52, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Name of leader and Horsham candidate[edit]

It's slightly confusing, but my full name is Raymond James Smith, though I go by the second, so the party leader and horsham candidate are the same person (me). Not sure how that's best represented in the article though. Floppy (talk) 10:29, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed I thought it must be something like that. I took your word for it. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 13:08, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]