Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Civil Liberty (UK)


 * 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  keep. Spartaz Humbug! 03:28, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Civil Liberty (UK)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Company who is only notable for an alleged link to the BNP, and even that isn't sourced. Hence... Sceptre (talk) 09:57, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  -- – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 17:46, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Uncle G, you seem to be stretching the notion of novel analysis to a place that the various Wikipedia observations enjoining common sense would find difficult to accommodate. A BNP member operates a website whose pages purporting to describe the organisation's work refer only to work supporting prominent BNP officials and members and the only pictures show those BNP officials and members and BNP activity. Wikipedia does not demand that every nail should be hammered home to bury its head. WP:UCS I've added references for external claims.Opbeith (talk) 23:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep.Useful article because it clarifies the possibility of confusion of this organisation with the pressure group Liberty. According to the Article History the link to the BNP indicated via the at http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/programmes/2001/bnp_special/membership/organisers/kevin_scott.stm was in place before this request for deletion. Other material referring to earlier website contents supporting the connection have been removed - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Civil_Liberty_(UK)&diff=prev&oldid=39369672.  The website postal address and the photographs of Kevin Scott at the two sites are supporting  evidence of the connection.  Without digging deeper I cannot confirm my suspicion that this could be an example of article sabotage by attrition leading ultimately to an apparently objective argument for deletion.  However I would say that Wikipedia's basic informational principles may be jeopardised by an excessive enthusiasm for "cleaning up". Opbeith (talk) 07:35, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Evidence supporting a close association with BNP members and activities now sourced. Opbeith (talk) 09:12, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it isn't. It's based upon a novel analysis of primary source material (the contents of some WWW pages), done by you, not upon actual sources that have performed and published such an analysis outside of Wikipedia.  Wikipedia's "basic informational principles" include No original research, which I suggest that you familiarize yourself with. Uncle G (talk) 21:43, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

n.b. The article appears to have arrived here as a result of an editing process which removed clear but circumstantial evidence supporting the assertion earlier in the article that Civil Liberty was alleged to be a BNP front organisation. The evidence was unlinked/unreferenced but its source was clear. The removal of this evidence then led to the assertion being removed. This gradual removal of significant content has resulted in a request for removal. The notability of the organisation is clear. The redevelopment and verification of its content would not have been difficult. Instead the article is a candidate for deletion. Deletion would be destructive rather than constructive in effect. Administrative actions should surely be informed by a net constructive intent. Opbeith (talk) 07:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. This http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/feb/03/partyfunding.thefarright indicates that the organization is notable. Whether the evidence connecting the group to BNP is strong or not, shouldn't (as far as I can see) bear on the notability of the organization.--Pink Bull (talk) 22:54, 29 July 2009 (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.