Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anarchist Federation (Britain and Ireland)


 * 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   no consensus. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 05:13, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Anarchist Federation (Britain and Ireland)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable, was tagged as dubious in 2011, no effort has been made to find a secondary source. I cannot find one either. 123chess456 (talk) 23:34, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 9 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment: A 2001 article in The Independent says they are "considered very influential" (, via Questia, subscription required). The same newspaper has a 2010 column by Dominic Lawson about/against them (, also via Questia). Neither these nor the various other pieces of shock-horror media coverage returned by Questia makes it as a reference for the article as such but they are indicative of continuing coverage. AllyD (talk) 05:46, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete for the size of the article four primary sources for references and very little significant coverage (that I can find). Murry1975 (talk) 18:02, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep per sources found by AllyD establish GNG. This article may need to be cleaned up and made concise. An argument that we delete an article because it is too long for the number of sources is unheard of. Valoem   talk   contrib  17:35, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * My point being ONE RS and four self published sources are not enough sources for an article of that size and none of them show substantial independent coverage that would lead to an article being kept. Cleaning it up would leave the info from one RS and would fail WP:GNG for multiple sources for articles. Murry1975 (talk) 14:23, 18 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr  \ talk / 02:25, 18 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - lacks sufficient coverage by independent reliable sources to establish notability.--Staberinde (talk) 14:33, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Staberinde's argument has already been disproven by AllyD. Murry's argument is that the content is not cited, but NGOs are a reliable source of their stated principles. It is like quoting the Constitution as a source for statements defining its content. Unless someone decides to raise SYNTH as an objection, which I laugh at in advance, I think we are done here. Anarchangel (talk) 21:07, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Reading AllyD's comment (I cant check those sources myself) I personally didn't read out a confirmation that it satisfies WP:GNG as "a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Also I would note that AllyD didn't vote either way so I guess he/she isn't so sure either.--Staberinde (talk) 15:10, 21 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment. Hey, I have Questia access and I can't find the articles you mentioned (either by your links or via searching). Can you relink them? czar ♔  17:29, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I see what you mean, they're not working for me any more either. A Questia search doesn't seem to be returning any Independent articles any more, though it does still provide others, for example Daily Mail 2001, Evening Standard 2011. Here's a non-paywalled link to the 2010 Lawson article from the Indy's clunky search facility: . AllyD (talk) 17:54, 24 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e deckertalk 01:25, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Weak keep -- I assume that this is effectively a minor political party. However, I would be happier if there were some indication of its membership, to show that this is not a small drinking club.  Peterkingiron (talk) 20:36, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep, the sources found by User:AllyD are thin, but probably just enough to push this past the WP:GNG. Lankiveil (speak to me) 02:30, 7 June 2014 (UTC).
 * Delete - as per Staberinde. 1292simon (talk) 00:58, 8 June 2014 (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.