Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Students for Britain

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. Consensus is that the organization does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines at this time. North America1000 18:09, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

London Students for Britain

London Students for Britain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:ORG. They got some passing news coverage for heckling a talk by David Cameron. Most of the other citations are to their own social media accounts or webpage. No evidence of in-depth coverage by reliable sources. Note I have also just AfD'd committee member Luke Nash-Jones, article created by same editor as this one. Bondegezou (talk) 14:29, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:47, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:47, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:47, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clean up is fair, but deletion not - this is a valid organisation, that has appeared in the news, as references show. The references feature BirkbeckTories, LondonUniBrexit website, newspapers, as well as YouTube clips of News reports from French and Swiss TV featuring London University Brexit Society. Considering that Bondegezou supports the Liberal Democrats who are opposed to Brexit, I would suggest there is clear bias in his call to delete this page. He has blatantly ignored that the organisation appeared in national newspaper the Spectator http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/03/chris-bryant-brings-blair-into-the-brexit-debate/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonadabsmith (talk • contribs) 15:29, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment As per my comments at the related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luke Nash-Jones, the YouTube clips are on the society's own YouTube account; I can't verify their use by French or Swiss TV. One is under a minute long, one about a minute and the half. A brief appearance on TV does not constitute "significant coverage" about the subject under WP:GNG. The Spectator article is a short piece about what Chris Bryant said at a debate organised by the society. The society gets one brief mention. This also does not constitute significant coverage. The society's biggest claim to fame is when they heckled Cameron, which was covered in a number of places, but again this isn't significant coverage about the society. I do personally support the Liberal Democrats, but would remind Jonadabsmith of WP:AGF. Bondegezou (talk) 15:47, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You admit you support the LibDems who are opposed to Brexit, and thus you naturally, good faith or not, would want this page removed. Those clips did appear on French and Swiss TV. Why are you not making this fuss about the Students for Britain page, which has similar brief references? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonadabsmith (talk • contribs) 15:50, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I refer readers to my additional comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luke Nash-Jones. I agree that Students for Britain may not meet notability criteria either. Jonadabsmith, feel free to propose deletion for that article yourself. However, that article's fate is irrelevant to this discussion. Also, please sign your posts -- thank you. Bondegezou (talk) 15:56, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bondegezou, having admitted your political position, you are not in any neutral position to judge this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonadabsmith (talk • contribs) 16:04, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bondegezou, if you want to just improve the quality of Wikipedia posts, you would co-operate with my suggestion to clean up and not delete the page. Instead you analyse Wikipedia submission guidelines to try and find an excuse to delete the page, and hence are driven by political motives. Even half what you said about it is nonsense; it has more references than you imply and than other pages you don't complain about. Rather than trying to delete pages with political ideas you disagree with, you should hit the streets and try to convince people of your ideas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonadabsmith (talk • contribs) 17:18, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bondegezou (Dr Henry Potts) regards your reminders to all of the canvassing guidelines, the account JohnInDC which supports you appears not only to be fake but to have been deleted multiple times, calling into question the reliability of those supporting your harassment of those with other political views. It is clear that Dr Henry Potts of UCL is furious that a Brexit movement has started on his beloved left-wing campus and is trying to "no platform" it rather than support democracy and liberty that he claims are his ideals. As a lecturer, he should encourage learning and ideas, rather than silencing those he doesn't personally agree with. He should help students to express themselves, suggesting to improve articles but not seeking childishly to delete them.

  • Comment Is this an attempt to out a Wikipedia editor by naming them? RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:52, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Only apparent off-campus publicity for this group are two quick informal man-on-the-street interviews. Article is full of promotional text pushing the group's political position, supported by citations that don't mention the group at all. Too many of the citations are self-published (youtube, twitter, blogs) and unsuitable to establish the groups notability. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 17:50, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Outing someone? Don't be silly - his name is on his profile with a link to his uni page - he wants the publicity. You ignore the Spectator and the Beaver article, which is far more than many other pages have. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonadabsmith (talk • contribs) 18:19, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Spectator article doesn't mention the group at all, and the Beaver article is unlikely to be very independent of the article subject. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 18:37, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Spectator Article mentions London University Brexit Society which has been renamed London Students for Britain — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexicon83 (talk • contribs) 19:34, 4 March 2016 (UTC) [reply]
Oh, there it is. I was expecting some actual discussion of the group itself as a mere mention of the name is no indication of the group's notability. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 19:44, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. JohnInDC (talk) 20:22, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate there may be some misunderstanding, but The Beaver is a left-wing student union paper, so suggesting it is biased in a favour of Brexit is frankly ludicrous. User:Jonadabsmith

I don't think anyone has claimed that The Beaver is biased in favour of Brexit, have they? The claim is that it is not independent from the University of London. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:49, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I can't find evidence of significant coverage of the group in reliable, independent sources, so it fails the notability guidelines. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:51, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do NOT Delete - the group has been cited by a national newspaper and television stations. The move to delete this neutral coverage page is entirely politically motivated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexicon83 (talk • contribs) 22:22, 4 March 2016 (UTC) — Alexicon83 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • What we need is significant coverage, Alexicon83. If you can provide links to this newspaper and television coverage, that would help establish whether it is significant. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:39, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Cordless Larry ? Students for Britain page has no greater coverage — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkMcCabe2 (talk • contribs) 23:28, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are more than 5 million article on Wikipedia, MarkMcCabe2; we can't deal with all the problematic ones at once. Please see ‎WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. If you want to nominate Students for Britain for deletion, you can find instructions at WP:AfD. I have already tagged it for notability concerns. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:33, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:1E, known only for heckling David Cameron. Whilst heckling David Cameron is a great thing to do, there's no depth of coverage to pass WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:43, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I ran a sources analysis in the AFD for the affiliated Luke Nash Jones. A number of the sources used in that article are also used here. The two YouTube sources, from French and Swiss news, that link Luke Nash Jones to this association can be used in this case as they are merely confirming that at least Nash Jones is indeed affiliated with this group. I've taken the liberty of moving those two sources against Nash Jones's name in the infobox so it's obvious they are the source for him and none of the others. The sourcing of this article is a mess. A number of the sources have been reused but are listed as unique entries in the reflist. In time, the pro EU exit protests and the groups actions may become notable per WP:EVENT, but that time is not now. Blackmane (talk) 01:22, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not notable; fails GNG. Only 1 reliable source (specifically, secondary news source) on the article refer to the group by name ([1]) and even that one screws up the name (dropped "London" from title). One news blog does as well ([2]). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:39, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Regarding the missing "London" in that source, EvergreenFir, we also have a Students for Britain article and, looking at the histories of both, there seems to be some dispute between editors which group that event was staged by. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:56, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete this is very typical WP:SOAPBOX by a conflicted creator with plain old advocacy mixed in, as well evidenced by almost all the hallmarks of WP:TENDENTIOUS. Sources are poor - passing mentions and WP:SPS. Jytdog (talk) 01:37, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have struckout comments by blocked socks of Jonadabsmith confirmed by a CU at the SPI on Jonadabsmith. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:42, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No credible evidence this meets WP:GNG. Guy (Help!) 11:33, 9 March 2016 (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/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/London_Students_for_Britain&oldid=1138032707"