Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Auditing Britain – photography is not a crime


 * 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. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 15:42, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Auditing Britain – photography is not a crime

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Apart from the opening sentence, this article reads like an essay on photographing the police or a coat rack on which to hang opinions on police conduct which consists largely of original research. Nothing here is encyclopaedic (WP:SOAP point 2), and if there is a coherent subject here, no reliable sources are cited to establish its notability. This belongs on someone's blog somewhere, not in an encyclopaedia. HJ Mitchell &#124; Penny for your thoughts? 14:56, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah, another NearEmptiness article about this organisation? They recently created Graham Dyson as an "Auditing Britain"-based BLP attack piece on a non-notable person (article afterwards deleted at AfD). Perhaps time to give them a topic ban from Auditing Britain if they can't edit neutrally about it. Fram (talk) 15:08, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah, another NearEmptiness article about this organisation? They recently created Graham Dyson as an "Auditing Britain"-based BLP attack piece on a non-notable person (article afterwards deleted at AfD). Perhaps time to give them a topic ban from Auditing Britain if they can't edit neutrally about it. Fram (talk) 15:08, 1 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete, no GNews hits, very few hits in general. Removing the NPOV second part of the title doesn't really help. Basically, "Auditing Britain" etcetera is not a "trend" but a single Youtube channel. Perhaps with WP:TNT and someone neutral starting from scratch, something useful could be created. The current article, right from the title and the intro, isn't what we need though. Fram (talk) 15:17, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete Why are we Auditing Britain? There is no reason to have that in the title if it's not explained in the article. Could perhaps be selectively merged into a Policing in the UK. Oaktree b (talk) 16:14, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Photography, Conspiracy theories, Law, Police,  and Internet. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (work / talk) 16:32, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (work / talk) 16:34, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete, although the question of photography and police inevitably comes up regularly in media, this article is clearly a campaign piece from one particular perspective, and is trying to make a story out of sources that aren't part of a "movement" or trend. So I wouldn't even merge it to articles on UK policing - we're more likely to see the subject dealt with appropriately if editors there start from scratch. In any case, the article completely misses the other half of the topic: that people being stopped by the police often don't want their arrest filmed! It's possible that one could write an article about the interaction of photography and policing, but this isn't how to go about doing it, and the article would have a different title. Elemimele (talk) 17:48, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete per above.  141 Pr  {{{sup|contribs}}/Best page} 20:33, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete per all above. No more than an essay and opinion piece. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:44, 7 March 2023 (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.