Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/'no' campaign (euro)


 * 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 Keep. Merging or splitting, as suggested by some editors in this discussion, is an editorial decision. It can be done at any time, without an AfD, provided there is consensus among the editors involved or intrested. DES (talk) 05:40, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

'no' campaign (euro)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

An article with no significant information, no sources, only eleven major edits, only one serious article link, and a very awkward title. I'm a staunch inclusionist, but there is no (and as far as I'm aware, there never was an) organisation called the '"no" campaign' in the UK. We should wait until there is one to have an article on it. -- Thesocialistesq/M.Lesocialiste 02:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * No sources, so it lacks verifiability. Delete per nom, referencing WP:NRSNVNA. - Chardish 05:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete I'll also vote 'no' on this one. As it has NO sources, it really has NO purpose.  Citi Cat  05:50, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - This article does have a place, it just needs to be found. It is a real organization, it comes up in a news article as one of the first google hits: . While it's from a long time ago, it is definitely useful for someone who may be doing a report on the Euro, or finding some history of it. Perhaps it should be retitled as the "Euro No Campaign" ?  Redian  (  Talk  )  06:10, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep This campaign was very notable for the period it was running with plenty of sources available - I have added some sources to the article which leave no doubt about the potential for expansion. Contrary to the nominator there clearly was a 'no' campaign.  I agree that the title of the article is strange and a dsicussion on the article title would be welcome but the article itself should clearly be kept. Davewild 10:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * In response to the two comments above, I wouldn't be opposed to moving and then this article now that it's sourced and now that I know there really was a large, important organization called to No Campaign. I'm thinking the name should be "No Campaign (UK)" in order to differentiate it from other possible "No" Campaigns that have existed or may yet exist and to make it clear the same time that the unequivocal, unqualified name of the organization was simply the "No Campaign". I would support more work being done on and more links being made to the article in conjunction with this. When we can get consensus on this or something like it, I'll withdraw the Afd. -- Thesocialistesq/M.Lesocialiste 05:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep- it would not be difficult to source and expand this article Thunderwing 11:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - it's got sources, and is just missing citations.-h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 12:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge into one of the main Euro-related topics if some references to establish notability can be found, else Delete as a POV-Fork-- simxp (talk) 01:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Create a new article, Opposition to the euro, to contain this and similar content, and merge this into it. -- The Anome 10:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete or at least Merge into an article with some substance. As it stands, its just waffle (and a POV fork). --Red King 19:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to Euro. The other way around - a split - is an option too, but is small enough to be a section only for now. I have just merged a paragraph there. - Nabla 13:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletions.   -- --  pb30 < talk > 16:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletions.   -- --  pb30 < talk > 16:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * 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.