Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Children and Maternal Parents Against Immigration & Government Nationality Situation


 * 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. T. Canens (talk) 06:28, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Children and Maternal Parents Against Immigration & Government Nationality Situation

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

The editor who created this article, who appears to be involved in the campaign it documents, did so at campaigns. When I reverted that page back to a redirect to campaign, he re-introduced the material, promising to add references. I've had a look and can't find sources that would establish notability. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:45, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Delete: The text is copied verbatim from and I cannot find any other source that would indicate notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sabrebd (talk • contribs) 07:55, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

thanks 'cordless larry' for moving the page to one that is suitable for wiki rules. This group is first cited by Lord Eric Avebury in the House of Lords on 8th July 2002. Quoting Lord Avebury from Handard: Perhaps I may give an example. It relates to the leader of a new NGO called CAMPAIGNS—I shall not read out what the acronym stands for, but it is an ingenious usage. He was born in the United States in 1967 to a British mother and a US father. At the time, 477 his mother made inquiries at the British Consulate in the US and was told that he could not obtain UK nationality. That was presumably because the correct information had not been fed across to our Consulate in the US. Additionally, while his mother was in Britain she approached the Home Office directly—so she told her son—in an attempt to get recognition of the right to pass on her UK nationality to her children. She was told that, because she was a woman, she could not pass on her nationality, in spite of the fact that the 1981 Act was then in force. Mr Turberville, the leader of the CAMPAIGNS organisation..." If any additional information for verifiable reference is required, please ask. Hansard is the Offical Government Recorded Records of All debates in the Houses of Parliament UK. It is definitive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mturberville (talk • contribs) 12:09, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I've replied to this comment in the first place that I saw it posted, here. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:55, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete no sign of notability and concerns about self promotion and conflict of interest. I suspect just one of many such campaigns over the years by individuals with no lasting notability. MilborneOne (talk) 13:14, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete, failure to show that the campaigns have received significant coverage in reliable sources. Additionally,, the chief editor of the article, has a conflict of interest as evidenced by the quotation he cites above and by edits made at British nationality law‎. —C.Fred (talk) 14:01, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


 * keep, other references

please note that if a person would actually read the refence links they would find that this has been an ongoin active issue in parliamet for over a decade and dates back to 1948. But it was not till Campaigns came onto the scene that real 'affected' people had names to add to the debate, yes the numbers of members were grossly under stated in the Parliamentary debates - to prevent the scare tactic setting in. But when 1.6 million polish arrived in 2004/5, the hundreds of thousands who are members of campaigns are a drop in the bucket. Mturberville (talk) 12:00, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

see link for actual number of people affected before the watershed date was removed. added keep link to show who has actually been affected by the addition of section 4C that would not have come about if not for campaigns. ps. there are MANY Turberville's in the world! Mturberville (talk) 12:04, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep ,
 * The issue is not how many people have been helped by the organisation. Wikipedia has guidelines for determining what topics are notable enough for inclusion. Please see Notability. CAMPAIGNS would need to have "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" to be notable, and I can't find evidence that that is the case. Your case for keeping the article would be much stronger if you could demonstrate such coverage. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:07, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Exactly. The article doesn't seem to link to any source other than those within the government (Hansard, Queen's speeches, etc.). The lack of coverage in secondary sources is the problem this article needs to overcome. —C.Fred (talk) 14:34, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I've searched LexisNexis for newspaper coverage. "Children and Maternal Parents Against Immigration & Government Nationality Situation" returns no results. I tried "Michael Turberville" as well and while there were plenty of results, none related to this capaign. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:09, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * As a result of a discussion on the article's talk page, I have found this source mentioning the campaign. It's only a single mention, though, and I don't think it constitutes significant coverage. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:42, 17 September 2010 (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.