Talk:John Rees-Evans

Untitled
I removed a statement taken from press reports which said that his policy was to pay Indians and Tanzanians to leave the country to reduce "unnecessary population" I have watched the videos and this is a misrepresentation of what he says. In particular he did not mention specifically Indians and Tanzanians or any other nationality, nor did he use the phrase "unnecessary population" as implied. Weburbia (talk) 13:21, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
 * @Weburbia, the wording of such a atatement might be a matter of debate, but surely it ought to be included, just as it is in UK Independence Party leadership election, 2017? Isn't it just as worthy as the thing about the donkey? Harfarhs (talk) 18:00, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Merger proposal
Proposing that Democrats and Veterans should be merged into this article. The small amount material about the party would fit comfortably in this article for the time being in a similar way to OneNation fitting within Bolton's article. Ralbegen (talk) 08:56, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

This two articles should not be merged. The Democrats and Veterans Party is now fully functional with approaching 5,000 members signed up in under 2 months. The leadership team contains other individuals of merit such as Trevor R Coult MC. It therefore has an existence independent of John Rees-Evans as its current Leader. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.168.194.246 (talk) 06:36, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The size (which I can't find a source supporting?) of an organisation is only relevant as far as receiving RS coverage is concerned. The involvement of notable people is also not sufficient, because notability is not inherited — though Trevor Coult does not have is own Wikipedia article, so may not be notable in Wikipedia's terms anyway. However, this isn't a deletion discussion. You say that it's independent of Rees-Evans, but no party is independent of its leader. There is significant overlap in the two pages — this page already covers Rees-Evans's leadership of the group, which is a substantial part of the reliably-sourced material on the Democrats and Veterans page. The party's page is also short, so it makes sense to merge it to Rees-Evans's page. The party's formation would also benefit from the context of Rees-Evans's full article, so I think that this merge fulfils to at least some extent three of the four reasons for merging. Ralbegen (talk) 09:56, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Surely many parties are independent of their leaders for the purposes of Wikipedia, e.g. Conservative Party (UK). Moreover, I would say that only one of the reasons for merging is fulfilled by the reasoning displayed above (number 3, 'Text'). Harfarhs (talk) 16:22, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The Conservative Party has a lot of coverage to write an article about it from. It also has more than one notable member from throughout all of time, and has had more than one leader. The conditions of Rees-Evans and the Democrats and Veterans are more similar to Bolton and OneNation than the Conservative Party.


 * As with my original proposal, I think that Text is the clearest cut reason to merge. And I don't think that the reasons to avoid merging apply here (they're not "discrete subjects"——they are very closely related). Ralbegen (talk) 17:27, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * This discussion has rather petered out. Shall we take this to be 'no consensus' and remove tags? Bondegezou (talk) 13:28, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Happy to. Ralbegen (talk) 16:18, 10 May 2018 (UTC)