Talk:Don't Pay UK

Organisers
The Daily Mail, a deprecated source, claim to identify one of the organisers here: []. Does anyone have a usable source? Springnuts (talk) 19:52, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Hopefully not, as the campaigners have so far wished to remain anonymous. This makes them low-profile individuals and so we'd have to consider BLP very carefully before adding any information about them. I believe the Daily Mail source would be unusable to name the supposed organiser for BLP reasons even if from a reliable source, per BLPPRIVACY. — Bilorv ( talk ) 20:45, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Maybe. But it’s primarily the political motivation and alleged affiliations which would be noteworthy. Springnuts (talk) 06:32, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * It says more about the Mail, really. Secretlondon (talk) 13:45, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

December 1st strike and ongoing
I have changed the intro to briefly acknowledge the passing of 1 October and the upcoming 1 December strike. This article could do with more updates of the activities of Don't Pay. Rhagfyr (talk) 17:16, 7 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Why is this even an article to begin with? It popped up quite early into the campaign written entirely by @Bilorv: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Don%27t_Pay_UK&oldid=1101953474
 * A well-constructed article but I'd question its WP:NOTABILITY particularly at the time, and now that the original campaign has failed.
 * The whole page is written like an advert much in line with the website itself. Very little criticism and not much in the way of secondary sources. BLM UK doen't even have an article and they earned millions, funded hundreds of thousands to charities, appeared in serious newspapers every week, etc. And Enough is Enough is...well. 2A02:C7F:4C0D:D100:ED97:78B:DA5:B65F (talk) 04:45, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I think notability is obvious and the article was written with all available sources at the time.You are not only allowed, but implored to update the article with the changes to the situation since September, as I have been unable to find the time to. I have thousands of tasks I would like to do but for time limitations. You are also encouraged to write articles on the very large number of notable topics regarding UK social movements and political activism that have yet to be created, not through deliberate censorship, but by the chronic shortage of volunteer labour on Wikipedia.You can also challenge the article's notability at Articles for deletion if you like, though I highly doubt this article would be deleted. Notability is not temporary, so if it was notable at the time of creation then it is notable now. — Bilorv ( talk ) 21:50, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree that this barely seems notable. It's one (failed) grassroots campaign among many. It had a lot of "spin" from the original authors (and the organisers play a good social media game...). Even now there aren't many citations. The Background section is a rehash of every other article about the energy crisis, not the campaign itself. It could be a History section similar to NO2ID, but as per the discussions above there isn't any reliably-sourced history.

Meanwhile Enough is Enough has attracted rallies of thousands of people--including high profile politicians, celebrities and organisations. It's barely one paragraph + a few bullet points! Treppin (talk) 11:14, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
 * you are welcome to expand Enough is Enough (campaign). Most articles are poor-quality because of lack of volunteer labour, not for any other reason. I wrote Don't Pay UK because there was no existing article. The EiE article is one of several dozen articles on the 2022–3 British labour movement that I would love to improve/create, but I am just one person and have limited time.If you do believe that Don't Pay UK is not notable, you can nominate it for deletion through Articles for Deletion. I doubt that it would be deleted and have done my best to show notability through 30 sources that are primarily about the campaign. In contrast, whether NO2ID is notable or not (I haven't done the research), the current article appears to have 0 sources that contribute to notability. — Bilorv ( talk ) 19:29, 2 February 2023 (UTC)