Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bloomsbury Fightback!


 * 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. The Bushranger One ping only 04:50, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Bloomsbury Fightback!

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Not at all notable. The only thing in the article which remotely resembles a claim of significance is the claim that the group organised a "a spoof strike rally" which was mentioned in several newspapers and magazines. I do not think that would constitute sufficient notability to justify an article even if it were sourced, but it isn't. I have searched for this on Google, combining "Bloomsbury Fightback" with various other words and phrases referring to the "spoof rally", and found nothing at all about it. The article gives two sources. One of these is an article written by a member of Bloomsbury Fightback!, published in "Socialist Resistance". The other is published by the New York Post, but it does not mention Bloomsbury Fightback at all, and the only thing in the article which could possibly be relevant is a one sentence statement that Lady Gaga "agreed to support Zizek at a March rally in London when the lecturers' union UCU was on strike". This may or may not refer to a "spoof" rally, and if so the spoof may or may not have been created by Bloomsbury Fightback, but there is no reliable source saying so. I have searched for "Bloomsbury Fightback" both alone and in combination with other words and phrases relating to the content of the article, and I have found Wikipedia, Twitter, a few blogs, wordpress, various minor left wing publications, but nothing that could remotely be regarded as significant coverage in reliable independent sources. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:14, 4 October 2011 (UTC) JamesBWatson (talk) 07:14, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per (pleasingly thorough!) nom; nothing out there suggests this meets the GNG. Yunshui (talk) 08:07, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per JamesBWatson. I couldn't find anything substantial by googling either. Not notable. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:26, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment They were mentioned in this article in the Evening Standard as being involved in letting off a smoke bomb in Foyles bookshop as a protest against the New College of the Humanities. They have also had a letter published in the Guardian. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:33, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 13:48, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * They're kids, they've thrown a smoke 'bomb' and they've written a lefty letter. Notable? No. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:16, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Let's get this accurate. They were not mentioned in the Evening Standard article "as being involved in letting off a smoke bomb". They were mentioned as being involved in a protest, and separately it is stated in the same article that some unknown person let off a smoke bomb. The full and complete mention of this group in the article is "Protest organisers included members of Bloomsbury Fightback". Scarcely substantial coverage. As for writing a letter to a newspaper and getting it published, are we seriously to think that that confers notability? Even writing articles in newspapers does not confer notability, as we need sources about the subject of an article, not by the subject, so writing one letter and getting it published does not come within a hundred miles of the goal posts. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:58, 10 October 2011 (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.