Deletion of British National Party election results (2nd nomination)

Comment: I would strongly recommend that editors take a look at BrownHairedGirl's examples above, and ask themselves if these articles are in compliance with ,  (and particularly ) and , and if they serve as a good example for what political articles ''should'' look like
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:NOR||WP:PSTS||WP:NOT)

Comment: in its current form. Whilst the topic of BNP electoral performance is certainly encyclopedic this article doesn't attempt to analyse or discuss it. Instead it presents a huge mass of electoral data. #STATS says that "articles should contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader", and this article is nothing ''but'' statistics. If explanatory text were added the article might be worth keeping, but this material is already present in British National Party
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: a) This isn't a complete list: it covers only parliamentary elections, not local council elections.  b) This isn't a "long and sprawling lists of statistics", it's a well-organised and annotated list election results.  c) You are quite right that the article would benefit from explanatory text, but if that is needed it's a matter for expansion rather than for deletion, and may not be needed since ths data is pslit out per 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Splitting (WP:SPLIT)

Comment: In your opinion, but which of the 6 points in  does this violate? In the deletion review, PhilKnight commented: "Allow recreation provided every entry is properly sourced. Unsourced content should be removed, and if the entire article is unsourced it should be deleted." That was done
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTDIR)

Comment: First, the nomination doesn't give me any valid grounds for deletion; I think the nom boils down to .  Second, I agree with Valenciano
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:WAX)

Comment: It is hard to view this nomination immediately after a deletion review as anything other than disruptive, and I hope this AFD will be promptly closed as an abuse of process.  In case that doesn't happen, I will make the case for keeping it (though I do wonder whether this is going to become a recurring saga).   The significance of the BNP as a subject of detailed study is not that it shows any immediate sign of gaining power, but that it rejects much of the current structures of the British society: AFAIK there is no other political party in the UK whose membership is regarded as grounds for dismissal from employment (see British_National_Party#2008_membership_list_leak|2008 membership list leak).  Regardless of whether anyone supports or opposes the BNP, it is a highly controversial party whose electoral record is much more widely and deeply scrutinised than that of any other small party, both in the press and in academia and elsewhere.  For some examples of the voluminous analysis of the BNP and its predecessor the National Front, see: http://www.intute.ac.uk/cgi-bin/redir.pl?url=http://www.jrrt.org.uk/Far_Right_REPORT.pdf&handle=sosig1145537923-28000 Far Right in London: a Challenge for Local Democracy, http://www.intute.ac.uk/cgi-bin/redir.pl?url=http://www.jrct.org.uk/core/documents/download.asp?id=140&handle=sosig1145870747-12358 British National Party: Inside the Roots of Its Appeal, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V9P-4ST45M1-1&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=9767a5d48f7977e07806db2838b039bc Local context and extreme right support in England: The British National Party in the 2002 and 2003 local elections, http://www.informaworld.com/index/713722453.pdf ‘A day to make history’? The 2004 elections and the British National Party, http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/notes/snsg-01982.pdf Electoral performance of far-right parties in the UK, http://pa.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/citation/XXXI/3/282 The National Front Vote, http://www.unrisd.org/unrisd/website/document.nsf/ab82a6805797760f80256b4f005da1ab/17bfb816da5cef8b80256b6d005787d8/$FILE/betz.pdf Exclusionary Populism in Western Europe in the 1990s and Beyond, http://rac.sagepub.com/cgi/framedrapidpdf/45/2/75.pdf Examining the Success of the British National Party, 1999--2003, http://pa.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/gsn043 The Canary in a Coalmine? Explaining the Emergence of the British National Party in English Local Politics ... and that's only a small selection, which excludes the newspapers. There's a http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/bnp-far-right whole section of ''The Guardian'' full of related articles, and http://search.bbc.co.uk/search?scope=all&tab=all&q=bnp+%22british+national+party%22+%22election+results%22 a similar mountain of coverage on the BBC news website.The nominator complains that the article lacks independent evidence of the significance of the BNP's electoral performance, but that is at best an argument for improving and expanding the article.  However, the context of this article is well set out at British National Party#Electoral_performance, and this article is clearly marked there as a breakout section per .Finally, the nominator fears that the data will "give undue weight to the minor successes of this reviled bunch of extremists", which part from being deeply POV is a clear breach of 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Splitting (WP:SPLIT||WP:NOTCENSORED)

Comment: per . Exhaustive lists like this are well beyond our scope. Individual successes, such as Richard Barnbrook's in 2005, can be mentioned in the respective articles
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTDIR)

Comment: DIR #STATS, wikipedia is not a depository for such primary-source data
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)