Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Davis for Freedom campaign


 * 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   No consensus. I don't find even a rough consensus for keeping, or deleting the article. I have assigned little weight to the IP comment regarding sourcing, since no actual examples were provided, however, the follow on arguments of the same "no applicable citation" that were from account holders got equal weight. If I gave comment equal weight, the result would be the same here, still no consensus for deletion. My best recommendation here would be to wait awhile before relisting this debate, and in the mean time, discuss notability and sourcing issue on the talk page. I see some argument for a possible merge, that can also be discussed on talk. There is no consensus to merge here either. I'm not an administrator, I was one in the past however. NonvocalScream (talk) 16:45, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

David Davis for Freedom campaign

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

I'm not sure this subject is notable enough to have a page in its own right and it's in danger of being one-sided. Does anyone think six months after the by-election this article will still be not worthy? I subject merging to Haltemprice and Howden by-election, 2008. Philip Stevens (talk) 21:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep The nomination proposes merger which is not deletion and so AFD is not the correct process. Other aspects of the nomination are obviously flawed too since the article has copious citations of sources such as the BBC which demonstrate notability.  Colonel Warden (talk) 22:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

*Keep The article is an appropriate fork of content that would otherwise unbalance David Davis (British politician), Haltemprice and Howden by-election, 2008, plus a few other related pages. Being 'in danger' of bias, or not being notable in the future, are invalid reasons for deletion. MickMacNee (talk) 00:38, 21 June 2008 (UTC) Re-voted on relisting. MickMacNee (talk) 23:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, probably speedily. Whilst it might have been possible to merge this with the by-election article, I think it probably does have sufficient independent notability (based on third-party refs) to justify a separate article. DWaterson (talk) 22:26, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep It has a context of its own within the history of this unusual by-election doktorb wordsdeeds 12:33, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete Not one of the cited references mentions the David Davis for Freedom Campaign. This page should be a subsection on the David Davis page or the by-election page. At most. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.235.240.54 (talk • contribs) 13:04, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: User's 9th edit (4 of them about this page) MickMacNee (talk) 13:20, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep This is a remarkable episode in British political history which has garnered huge coverage. Of course the campaign is notable. Nick mallory (talk) 13:25, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment The issue of it being notable in 6 months is not really relevant to this discussion. The question should be "is it notable now?" Problems with notability in the future should be resolved as they appear. The one-sided argument issue is a little more concerning though as there is a strong likelihood that this article may become a soap box if editors are not careful. If this discussion resolves to keep the article then Philip Stevens may wish to start a merge discussion on the article talk page in line with WP:MERGE. Road Wizard (talk) 13:40, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete "David Davis for Freedom" is the name of his website, but not of a notable campaign. As the anon above says, the phrase doesn't seem to appear in the cited refs (the sample I checked, anyway).  Much of the content could probably be included in David Davis (British politician), but not in the by-election page where he is just one of the candidates, albeit the one who generated the election. PamD (talk) 13:43, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It can renamed if people seriously have a problem that the actual campaign name is not being fully referred to in the news. It can't be denied that a campaign exists, the sources aren't referring to any other actual campaign as far as I know. As for merging, I spun it out of David Davis, because as per the manual of style, the content is now big enough on it's own to warrant a split. MickMacNee (talk) 15:10, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. This discussion was reopened per Deletion review/Log/2008 July 3. Please allow discussion to run for normal 5 day period. IronGargoyle (talk) 23:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep based on the fact a subsequent merge discussion here has died out without any consensus to merge, let alone delete on the grounds given in this Afd nomination. I personally don't know why this was reopened rather than relisted, as the reasons given for listing at Drv were different from this arguably speedily closeable Afd nomination. MickMacNee (talk) 23:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment As there was no consensus for the merge and the deletion discussion was reopened after an early closure I don't think "speedy" is really an option here. Let it run for its 5 days and see what happens. Road Wizard (talk) 06:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't you think it is rather stupid to relist an Afd that questions notability, and suggests mergeing, after a merge suggestion fails? As far as I know, listing for Afd is not standard procedure after a failed merge, but I think you know this already. Like I said, the Drv nominator, and some of the voters here after relisting, are voting delete for different reasons than given in this Afd's nomination, hence it should have been re-nominated under those arguments. This Afd nomination is speedily closeable due to the invalid nomination and subsequent failed merge. MickMacNee (talk) 11:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * What I think and what others think is not important. What matters is that a consensus was formed at review to reopen this discussion. Closing the discussion early again will not help resolve this situation as the issues need to be aired and a conclusion found. In reference to your point about the phrasing of the nomination, you may wish to read Guide to deletion, with particular attention to the section on discussion. Collecting varied viewpoints in a deletion discussion is not only allowed, but actively encouraged. Commentators in deletion discussions often find different reasons to keep or delete an article beyond the case put forward by the nominator. Road Wizard (talk) 20:57, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Even the merge is looking doubtful simply because the sheer number of candidates has made the article, making a subarticle for an individual candidate look reasonable the same way Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008 is a reasonable subarticle of United States presidential election, 2008.  However, that analogy suggests a rename to something more neutral such as: David Davis by-election campaign, 2008 is in order. Caerwine Caer’s whines  00:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Rename per Caerwine. Road Wizard (talk) 06:34, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I am withdrawing support for the rename proposal. The current arguments seem to be resolving to 3 main categories, keep, delete or merge. I see no need to confuse consensus with a 4th option that has gained little support. Road Wizard (talk) 12:00, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete/Merge Davis precipitated a parliamentary by-election by resigning, and this is his campaign platform. There is no evidence that it is anything but an election manifesto. Davis is merely using the campaign to turn the election into a pseudo-referendum, and that to me suggests that the article should be merged to his personal article, with some mention in the Haltemprice by-election article, whilst being in keeping with WP:UNDUE. I would lean towards delete, as WP is not a soapbox, nor is it the news. Coverage of a newsworthy event (the by-election) does not make the campaign particularly notable. Ohconfucius (talk) 06:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep - enough notability - if you want to merge the article, please do not take it to AfD. - Diligent  Terrier  (and friends) 20:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete (or merge): covered by articles about David Davis, the by-election and the bill. Not separately notable. --Rumping (talk) 00:03, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge -Merge with Haltemprice and Howden by-election, 2008. Wikipedia is not a soapbox 92.8.227.191 (talk) 14:31, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: User's 2nd edit MickMacNee (talk) 16:12, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete Wikipedia is not a Poli-Blog. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.66.236.108 (talk) 15:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: User's 5th edit (3 of them about this topic) MickMacNee (talk) 16:12, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep I would disagree with merge because this is the central point, if you like, of one of the biggest political events the country has seen for years. It will probably be the biggest until next election (although nothing is ever certain). There has been a vast amount of coverage nationwide and I will certainly remember this for years to come. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 18:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 'One of the biggest political events the country has seen for years'? I have to disagree with that assessment. In the past year alone, political events that have received more attention than David Davis' campaign include the nationalisation of Northern Rock, the London mayoral election, 2008 and the previous by-election in Crewe and Nantwich. 'It will probably be the biggest until the next election' is an argument based on attempting to predict the future, which Wikipedia doesn't do, and 'I will remember this for years to come' is not sufficient grounds for inclusion. While I appreciate how much many people care about this subject, I just don't think it has proven to have long-term notability. Terraxos (talk) 00:37, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 'One of the biggest political events the country has seen for years' because it rebels in the face of the governmet. There has been much attention given to the lack of support the government has these days, and this is the main demonstration of that, if you like. 'I will remember this for years to come' is a direct response to people suggesting we will have forgotten about it in six months. That isn't a valid reason to delete, but \i don't see you picking them out for it, only taking my response to them out of context. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 14:07, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete or at least move to how to pointlessly waste public money and ruin your political career. I am not a dog (talk) 20:52, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete/Merge with Haltemprice and Howden by-election, 2008. Just a month later, the publicity over this event has already died down - the by-election itself received very little coverage from the mainstream media, as the result was never in doubt. It's clear now that David Davis' resignation, while surprising and interesting at the time, has had little to no lasting impact. As it is, this article is basically just a political campaign ad by one individual (a bit like all the Ron Paul articles that were created last year) and should be merged into the article on the event which it is really about, Haltemprice and Howden by-election, 2008. Terraxos (talk) 00:28, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You have misunderstood the notability guideline. If something was notable at a specific point in time (and that cannot even be argued otherwise given the amount of sources), then it remains notable for all time. We do not subsequently merge/delete articles purely because time has passed and the event is percieved to have faded from the spotlight. As an aside, I don't realy know what you define 'little coverage', as the result was on every single mainstream TV and radio news bulletin I saw yesterday. A merge with the by-election would be a violation of giving undue weight and given the size of this article, would be counter to the manual of style. But the case for a merge has already died out as a no consensus, something which seems to have been overlooked in the reopening of this Afd. Nothing has changed since that very recent debate, so it realy is a moot point. MickMacNee (talk) 16:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * A few responses: firstly, I'm not convinced that the merge proposal really received enough attention to represent a fair judgement on the article, though that is obviously open to debate. In any case, consensus can change and a 'delete' or 'merge' conclusion to this discussion would supersede the earlier 'no consensus' conclusion in the merge discussion.


 * Secondly, on the 'notability is not temporary' issue - I take that differently to you do. As I understand it, it means that 'notability' means lasting importance, not brief interest, and an event that only receives attention from the media for a brief period before they move in is not in fact 'notable'. (From Notability: "it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute evidence of sufficient notability.") In this case, this article would fail.


 * Finally, while I take back what I said above about this receiving little coverage, I don't think that's an argument to keep this article - the press coverage, as far as I can tell, was focused on the fact that there was a byelection and Davis' performance in it, as much as his personal campaign. The fact that there was plenty of media coverage when Davis first resigned, and when the results of the election were announced, but not so much in between, proves my point that it was the by-election that was really the notable topic here. If there had been no resignation and by-election, Davis' 'Freedom Campaign' would have received much less attention, and this article would probably not even exist; therefore, the latter should be considered a subtopic of the former rather than an event in its own right. Terraxos (talk) 01:13, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Despite saying 'finally' above, here's one more comment - I don't feel merging this content in with the main by-election article would constitute undue weight, as Davis' resignation and campaign on civil liberties is clearly the most important and significant aspect of this by-election, therefore deserves more weight than any of the other candidates (and the BBC, amongst others, covered it as such). There is precedent in having an article about a by-election which focuses heavily on one particular campaign: see Bermondsey by-election, 1983, which I believe is perfectly in keeping with the length and weight guidelines. Terraxos (talk) 01:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The merge propsal was initiated very recently, any moves to reopen/revisit based on consensus can change are clearly grounded in the fleeting interest basis, which as I said is irrelevant under the notability guideline. The merge proposal was on the talk page of a highly trafficked article, and still garnered no consensus. On notability, I think we just have a different interpretation of the bar of notability. This campaign is miles above being classed as a simple news blip not to be of note in its own right, this is seriously not even in doubt to me from my knowledge of wikipedia. And as I recently added, the campaign is not closed or finished going by Davis' statements. It arguably even pre-dated the by-election given the issues being debated. As for the bermondsey article, I would suggest that you may indeed be lacking in understanding of the manual of style, that article is frankly terrible. It has no lead section, and some very badly named, structured and worded sections. It took three scans of the article to figure out the story. Yes, it is about a single issue, but that issue is related to the by-election only. I realy can't even see under what title you would spin out the information that gives undue weight (presumably tatchel's leftist stance and homophobia against him). The article is biased towards Tatchel (you only find out Hughes actually won by looking at the Results table), but again you would still not justifiably double the length of tatchel's bio article to cover it that way either (although without looking, I would guess tatchel's article is much longer than Davis' bio). MickMacNee (talk) 21:07, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * PS the lack of coverage of the campaign inbetween the resignation and voting phases is down to in my opinon the lack of any labour candidate, or an obvious credible anti-Davis candidate, leading to the lack of any reportable 'debates'. However, the campaign was discussed for nearly half of an edition of BBC's Question Time during this time. MickMacNee (talk) 21:15, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete all of this belongs on the by-election page, or nowhere. &mdash; ciphergoth 06:45, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge relevant info into David Davis' article and/or the by-election article. --RFBailey (talk) 11:07, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Rename' - In any event the title of the article could do with renaming. 2008 David Davis civil liberties campaign? Francium12 (talk) 12:34, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Sources-  -- 86.29.252.163 (talk) 16:59, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for providing us with some of the sources, but do you wish to add a comment to go with them? Are you in favour of keep, delete, merge, or rename (or a fifth option not discussed yet)? As these seem to be similar sources to the ones referred to by MickMacNee and Terraxos above I don't see what new information they add to this discussion. Road Wizard (talk) 20:29, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

--86.29.243.15 (talk) 14:30, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Remame it 'The 2008 David Davis psudo-civil liberties campaign?
 * Note: User's 2nd edit Road Wizard (talk) 13:17, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep, notable campaign against left-wing campaign against civil liberties. --89.24.4.82 (talk) 23:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: User's 6th edit Road Wizard (talk) 13:17, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. It may be a little early to judge, but the website has not received an update since a press release about Davis's acceptance speech was uploaded on 11th July. There are no future events listed in the website's calendar and associated websites like twitter have seen even fewer updates. It looks increasingly likely that the campaign website and other materials related only to the by-election campaign. It is possible that something more may come from the campaign in the future, but the burden of proof lies on those claiming this is more than just a by-election campaign. Road Wizard (talk) 13:42, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Please do not employ original research to conclude the status of the campaign. Davis' official statement made clear the campaign will continue. Notability does not change with time, please do not try to disrupively chnage the nature of content with false pretenses. MickMacNee (talk) 14:46, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, but how does WP:OR apply to my comment? I have not presented unsourced information for inclusion in the article so I can't see the relevance of your point. I have presented a comment that the campaign websites appear inactive since the end of the by-election campaign as was suggested would happen by several editors after the article was created. I have also included a qualification at the start of the comment that "It may be a little early to judge..." I am sure other editors are mature enough to take the evidence I have presented in conjunction with the qualification to make their own minds up about the situation.
 * I would also like a full explanation about how I am being disruptive. Can you please provide links to the policies or guidelines that I have violated as I surely cannot see them. If I have not breached any policies then I would suggest that you reread WP:AGF and consider your comments carefully before you click the "Save page" button. Road Wizard (talk) 15:30, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Fine. If you didn't understand the first time, please provide sources that the campaign is over, per your ORIGINAL RESEARCH that the campaign is over. I hope this is substantial explanation of the concept. I will withdraw the accusation of disruption if needed. MickMacNee (talk) 15:54, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Please reread my comment. I have not stated anywhere that the campaign is over and in fact have made two explicit qualifications of my statement that it might not be over per "It may be a little early to judge..." and "It is possible that something more may come from the campaign in the future". What I have stated is that there has been no activity on the campaign website or associated websites since the day after the bi-election campaign. This is not original research. You can check the campaign website for yourself to see that what I have said is correct.
 * A clearer picture would be provided if we were discussing this a few months after the end of the by-election as then the activity or inactivity of the website would provide its own argument. However, as this deletion discussion may be closed at any moment the only option available is to present the facts as they stand at this moment in time. The website and supporting materials have not been updated since the day after the bi-election (this is a fact and not OR as can be verified by visiting the campaign website).
 * I know that you are eager to retain the article you created, but please do not misstate other people's comments. Road Wizard (talk) 16:12, 20 July 2008 (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.