Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conservative Campaign Headquarters


 * 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. AFD started by a block evader and all subsequent delete comments are from socks. Neil N  talk to me 17:37, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Conservative Campaign Headquarters

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )
 * Delete as no sources which actually prove the existence of the claimed building. Lack of sources within article, which also means it is doubtable and unverified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.231.12.99 (talk) 21:11, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:19, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:19, 6 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment. I don't understand the gist of this nomination. Substantial content in the article is accompanied by apparently valid citations, and ample sources can be found to further verify that the Conservative Campaign Headquarters is in fact located in Matthew Parker Street.  A few examples: "David Cameron delivered a celebratory speech to the jubilant staff of Conservative campaign headquarters, at 4 Matthew Parker Street, Westminster." (2017); "The Conservatives' campaign headquarters has flooded" at "Conservative Campaign HQ, located near the Houses of Parliament on Matthew Parker Street in Westminster" (2016); "A five minute walk from Parliament lies the Conservative Campaign Headquarters – known to all inside the party as 'CCHQ'. Arranged over the basement and ground floor of No. 4 Matthew Parker Street, Westminster, this was the nerve centre from which Lynton Crosby ran the election campaign.} (2015); and most basically the official website contact info.  Can the nomination be clarified?--Arxiloxos (talk) 21:37, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Response:This is a valid point, but the article page is not just of the building, but it is ABOUT it (parlicularly the 'campaigning' section, but also the infobox, which contains references which are poorly sourced and thus constitutes speculation. Further, none of the articles are particularly recent. 151.231.12.99 (talk)
 * What does the recency of the articles have to do with anything? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:46, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * ResponseThe recency of the articles indicates whether the content of the article is still valid but I see your point sir. Historic articles can be valid, but must class themselves as such and not puport to be current articles as this article does by use of present tense verbs and participles in the article in question. Merge & Redirect to Conservative Party (UK) may be a better option? What do you think, or anyone else who wishes to contribute? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.231.12.99 (talk)
 * If something needs updating then you add Template:Update, you don't start a process to delete over 200 edits spanning 14 years. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:56, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Response age is irrelevant, it is quality that is important. And this article lacks it. Many of the edits also appear to be Sockpuppets - not all, but a significant number, which leads me to also suspect it of Category:Articles with a promotional tone breach, as suggested if you read lots of parts of the article. 151.231.12.99 (talk)
 * The edits by the sockpuppets have been reverted, don't you worry about that. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:08, 6 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep It isn't a building (and the article makes that clear), it's a function. That function has gone through at least two names, and several physical addresses. All of which are adequately sourced and easily sourcable to anyone who wants to extend this. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:05, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Response WP:NPOV criteria not met as the function fo it seems to be affiliation with Conservative Party (UK) which is not enough. Needs more. Function appears to be 'campaigning', but that entire section is unsourced. Also promotional langyage throughout which is in breach of G11 151.231.12.99 (talk)
 * What part fails NPOV? And why would that be a reason for deletion, rather than fixing it by editing? Andy Dingley (talk) 22:11, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Response*Campaigning section is promotional and in breach of NOTFORPROMOTION above, heightened by it being largely (if not entirely) unsourced - only sources are linkedin profiles of staff there which makes it more promotional! Location section is also not from a neutral point of view, as it appears to point to its advantages of the building 151.231.12.99 (talk) 22:15, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Response Not a single one of the sources in the 'Campaigning' section of the article are LinkedIn profiles of staff. The sources that are LinkedIn profiles of staff are the list of key staff in the infobox. 'Campaigning' section includes 16 distinct sources, three of which are national media articles. Saying that the mention in the 'Location' section of it being close to Parliament is a breach of NPOV is stretching credibility. Mauls (talk) 12:53, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 05:37, 7 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep: the subject is notable (as evidenced by the sources from mainstream media), the article has multiple reliable sources, including recent sources. The claims made in the nomination above about the state of the article can be seen to be patently false (there were many sources within the article at the point of nomination). Mauls (talk) 12:49, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. Very notable subject, especially under its former name, Conservative Central Office. Numerous references,. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:45, 7 February 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.