Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Britain for Europe


 * 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.  Sandstein  09:46, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Britain for Europe

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article mostly cited from a combination of unreliable sources and self-published articles. Coverage in the media seems to be predominantly a one-sentence description of the organisation, which is not enough to satisfy WP:GNG. RaviC (talk) 21:43, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:11, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:12, 20 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep - the nature of the subject means that media coverage talks about BoF along with other groups that collaborate. Some articles are about the work of several groups. In these cases the whole article is about the groups collectivity not just a passing mention. For example see this article. It could be argued to merge all the Pro-EU groups into one page but the information is clearer in this format. Jonpatterns (talk) 10:00, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - There's already a page about all of the pro-EU groups, at Opposition to Brexit in the United Kingdom. It should thus be merged there, if there is to be a merger. --RaviC (talk) 12:45, 22 June 2018 (UTC)


 * A merge might be possible but I am not sure where - possibly a merge with Best for Britain. Vorbee (talk) 10:29, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * A better target would probably be People's Vote. However, the information is clearer as separate articles. Jonpatterns (talk) 10:34, 21 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete There is no substantial coverage of the group. This is the best I can find, but even that barely contributes towards notability. Ralbegen (talk) 20:02, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Article already had refs from The Guardian and The Independent. Now has extra refs from reliable sources and has been cleaned up. Objections are just flotsam and jetsam of Brexit really. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 00:30, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It would be appreciated if you could assume good faith. Regardless, the Guardian article mentions the group just twice, and the Independent article just once.  That's definitely not enough to fulfill WP:GNG --RaviC (talk) 16:06, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The nature of the subject means that media coverage talks about BoF along with other groups that collaborate. Whole articles are about the work of several groups, therefore it is more than just a mention. Jonpatterns (talk) 17:04, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * By your own logic, you should be arguing for a merger as the subject's argued notability is derived by association with the other groups. Take a look at Notability. --RaviC (talk) 21:53, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * That would only be the case if the notability was derived from the other groups. However, Britain for Europe is more than a passing mention in some of the articles. See comment below. Jonpatterns (talk) 14:14, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It would be appreciated if you could WP:AGF. - I always have and I always will. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 01:53, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The Vintage Feminist, did you just label "flotsam and jetsam" every suggestion by another editor contrary to yours? And did you just append bias to their suggestions? I'm afraid your comments are out of line. We're not debating Brexit here. Simmer down. -The Gnome (talk) 23:12, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The Vintage Feminist, did you just label "flotsam and jetsam" every suggestion by another editor contrary to yours? - Nope.
 * Objections are just flotsam and jetsam of Brexit really. I labelled Brexit as a contentious issue which it is. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 01:53, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification. A "contentious" issue is, of course, not the same as a "garbage" issue, or in your words "flotsam and jetsam." One can read the lines as well as between them. Let's leave this be. -The Gnome (talk) 10:29, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   07:09, 28 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment There is also a discussion on the deletion of the image, File:Britain for Europe Logo, removed in this diff. The discussion is here. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 09:48, 28 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete on account of subject lacking demonstrable, independent notability.
 * Examining the sources shows that up: The Guardian article is about the ostensible resurgence of pro-EU sentiment in the UK; the subject of this contested article, "Britain for Europe," is mentioned only twice, in passing. Nothing substantial about the organization itself at all. Same thing with The Independent article, where "Britain  for Europe" is mentioned only once, in a list of similar outfits, i.e. verbatim "The groups involved are the all‐party Parliamentary Group on EU Relations; Open Britain; Best for Britain; the European Movement UK; InFacts; Scientists for EU; Healthier IN the EU; Britain for Europe; and The New European newspaper." And that's all as far as acceptable sources are concerned, which is nothing. The rest are primary sources. They are useful when we want direct access to what they represent, but they do not, of course, establish notability. -The Gnome (talk) 23:12, 28 June 2018 (UTC)


 * The whole of the Guardian article is based around interviews with people from EU in Brum, a Britain for Europe affiliate group. Note Britain for Europe is an affiliation organisation consisting of roughly fifty groups. Guardian article:
 * The three of them are among the 15 people behind EU in Brum, an amazingly active set-up that was founded in the days after last year’s referendum. None of them did any formal campaigning prior to the vote; they fully expected the leave campaign to amount to nothing more threatening than a sizeable protest vote, and for remain to convincingly win. Late last year, EU in Brum was also the host for a “national grassroots remain strategy meeting”, organised by the new national pressure group Britain for Europe, and intended to coordinate the work of a whole host of campaigns.


 * “There were about 40 organisations there,” says Turvey. “More dialled in on Skype. We had somebody from Gibraltar. There are a lot of expat organisations – people who travel from France and Germany to the meetings. It’s about collaboration, how we can work together, and grow the movement. We’re all linked now, and there’s work going on all the time.”


 * This constitutes more than a passing mention. Jonpatterns (talk) 14:14, 29 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Additional Guardian ref added diff. Quote:


 * Britain for Europe and the European Movement maintain branches around the country, keeping the conversation alive and preparing to spring into action the moment a referendum is announced.


 * That's more than a passing mention as well. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 14:44, 29 June 2018 (UTC)


 * A one sentence mention giving a basic description of the group seems to be a passing mention to me? I certainly wouldn't consider it significant coverage of the group, and it doesn't help at all with writing an article about the group.


 * Having an affiliate which has received significant coverage in one reliable source doesn't seem to me to contribute to notability either. See WP:INHERITORG, with the closest example in the text being "A corporation is not notable merely because it owns notable subsidiaries". And that said, I don't think EU in Brum meets notability requirements unless there are more articles like the John Harris one linked... Ralbegen (talk) 16:57, 29 June 2018 (UTC)


 * "Passing mention" is in the eye of the beholder I guess.
 * Also from WP:INHERITORG: This works the other way as well. An organization may be notable, but individual members (or groups of members) do not "inherit" notability due to their membership. This is an argument for an article about EU in Brum being deleted on the grounds that it's "inherited" notability comes from playing host to a “national grassroots remain strategy meeting”, organised by the new national pressure group Britain for Europe."
 * There's also the Financial Times article that's just been added. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 19:03, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I do not have access to the Financial Times article but I somehow doubt there's significant coverage of the subject in it. I mean, the headline reads "Britain's Europhiles splinter into dozens of grassroots movements"! And the quote in our Wikipedia article is this: "The FT described the groups as 'diehards' that splintered off from the Open Britain group; saying they seek to reverse Brexit rather look for favourable terms of exit." Come on now. -The Gnome (talk) 20:24, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The paraphrase in the article is all the material in the Financial Times article. It's mentioned in one sentence as more radical than Open Britain, and a nine-sentence description in a glossary of the various groups. There's more material in the article about a nn group called "EU Flag Mafia" than about Britain for Europe. Ralbegen (talk) 15:01, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Quick correction of a slip: "nine-sentence" should be "nine-word". EddieHugh (talk) 11:43, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Re: Financial Times: I do not have access to the Financial Times article but I somehow doubt there's significant coverage of the subject in it.
 * Two quotes (which I have added to the ref):
 * ...the official campaign has split in two: a pragmatic Open Britain that is resigned to Brexit but hoping to soften its terms, and a more radical Britain for Europe, which is still determined to overturn it.
 * and in a list of pro-Europe groups at the end of the article -
 * Britain for Europe: Open Britain splinter group still fighting Brexit. The diehards. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 19:19, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * (That's literally all there is about this organisation in the FT article – 22 words – confirming The Gnome's doubts.) EddieHugh (talk) 20:41, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * 36 + 12 = 48 not 22, but even if it were 22 I don't think it would confirm The Gnome's doubts. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 01:15, 6 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Jonpatterns, the text you copied actually supports, and quite forcefully too, my position: the group "Britain for Europe" gets less space than EU in Brum, an organization that does not even have a Wikipedia article. (But I guess we might see one pretty soon. ) The only mention of "Britain for Europe" in The Gurardian is a passing one in relation to the other outfit. And you seriously find this to be significant coverage, as the policy demands?! What can I say. I'll let those who'll read the article see for themselves.
 * By the way, you might be under the impression that this discussion is shaped by politics or Brexit itself. (The signs of boiling blood have already appeared above.) I don't know about others, but as far as I'm concerned the only issue here is notability and the encyclopaedic merit of an article about the subject. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 20:16, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * EU in Brum is part of Britain for Europe. Jonpatterns (talk) 20:57, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * False. There is a rather big difference between being "part of" something and being "affiliated with" something, which is what EU for Brum is to BfE. If you don't know the difference, others do. -The Gnome (talk) 07:55, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * False. In this case Britain for Europe is an affiliation of groups, an umbrella group. Therefore, in this specific instance there is no difference between being "part of" and "affiliated with" the group, therefore EU for Brum is part of BfE. If you don't know the difference, others do. For more information see BfE -our groups. Jonpatterns (talk) 19:37, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Nope. Still no cigar, sorry. An affiliation is not the same as being "part of," as any lawyer worth his shiny leather shoes would explain to you. If, for instance, EU for Brum vandalizes a property, do you expect Britain for Europe to be liable for damages? Would property damages caused by EU for Brum be remedied by Britain for Europe? Yes or no? Because this is what happens when some entity is "part of it" instead of being at arm's length, i.e. simply affiliated. Would you like to think this over a bit? -The Gnome (talk) 07:17, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Late last year, EU in Brum was also the host for a “national grassroots remain strategy meeting”, organised by the new national pressure group Britain for Europe, and intended to coordinate the work of a whole host of campaigns. One of those campaigns being - quite obviously - EU in Brum. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 13:32, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Bold away as much as you feel like, but notability for EU for Brum is not notability for Britain for Europe. And you should know why it's not. -The Gnome (talk) 07:17, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I wrote higher up — "Also from WP:INHERITORG: This works the other way as well. An organization may be notable, but individual members (or groups of members) do not "inherit" notability due to their membership."
 * An argument is being made for deleting an article about EU in Brum on the grounds that it is trying to "inherit" its notability from Britain for Europe as it is playing host to a “national grassroots remain strategy meeting”, organised by the new national pressure group Britain for Europe." but this AfD is about Britain for Europe. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 15:48, 4 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Not only does coverage of EU in Brum not contribute towards notability of Britain for Europe, but the relationship between the two of them seems to be overstated. Britain for Europe claims EU in Brum as a member group, but EU in Brum doesn't consider this affiliation important enough to mention anywhere on their website, only listing Britain for Europe in a longer list of pro-EU organisations. Ralbegen (talk) 14:56, 1 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Quote from EU in Brum "about" web page — EU in Brum was founded in July 2016 and is a part of a national grass roots movement of people who....
 * The link goes to Britain for Europe's interactive map of local groups. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 15:48, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, I missed that. Thanks for the correction. It doesn't change the notability argument, or that coverage of EU in Brum doesn't contribute towards the notability of Britain for Europe. Ralbegen (talk) 17:19, 4 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete poorly soured and dubious notability - anything of value can be merged elsewhere -Snowded TALK 00:33, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete and give this group a sentence in one of the consolidated pro EU group pages. We shouldn't have a page for every minor pressure group Lyndaship (talk) 07:01, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete I'm all for taking the nature of the subject (context) into account, as Jonpatterns suggests. The context here is Brexit, which is the topic for innumerable media pieces (from reliable sources) every day and has been for the last few years. There should then, if this is a notable organisation, be no difficulty in establishing its notability from such sources. However, the sum of what has been presented is: 2 brief mentions in a Guardian article; 1 sentence in another Guardian article; half a sentence in the Financial Times, plus a 9-word description in a table summarising 13 similar groups; brief mentions (1 sentence at most, but usually just mentioning the group's existence) in various other articles (Guardian, Independent, New Statesman). The rest is about affiliates or not from reliable, independent sources. That's not enough to establish notability, context or no context. EddieHugh (talk) 11:37, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The main misunderstanding here seems to be to miss that the organisation is a collective of groups, or umbrella organization. Each affiliate is a part of the group. Jonpatterns (talk) 12:13, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not a misunderstanding or something that's been missed. Being an affiliate is a weak connection; it just means being associated in some way with a group, not being a formal part of a group. The problem here is that there's almost no information about Britain for Europe in reliable, independent, etc. sources. For notability, WP:CORPDEPTH requires "significant coverage [that] provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization". EddieHugh (talk) 13:50, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Affiliation can be weak or strong depending on the terms of affiliation. Also, see the definition of umbrella organization - 'an organization that coordinates the activities of a number of member organisations to promote a common goal'. Jonpatterns (talk) 14:41, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I know. If only we had some sources stating how close the link is... it looks weak and sources haven't been supplied and presumably don't exist, which takes us back to the main problem. EddieHugh (talk) 14:48, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * In reply to the many Brexit articles argument. Its probably easier for media companies to grab concoct an article around big name donors for groups like Best for Britain than report what is happening at a local level. Jonpatterns (talk) 04:24, 6 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment / Observation There's quite a lot of I don't think these mentions are quite mention-y enough and These mentions are Beef flavoured, I prefer Cheese & Onion flavoured mentions to some of the arguments being made. It's been over a fortnight since the OP was made (when the article looked like this). The article now has reliable, notable sources which are more than a single sentence. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 01:41, 6 July 2018 (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.