Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Empire loyalism


 * 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. There is no meaningful "keep" argument to be found anywhere in this discussion.  Sandstein  18:07, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Empire loyalism

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

As far as I can tell it's a hoax, with the factual parts not having enough substance for an article. No hits anywhere for "Movement for Ireland" together with "James Wills". If its one somewhat vague reference exists at all, it's not mentioned anywhere online. Kolbasz (talk) 19:03, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Wikishovel (talk) 10:23, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Wikishovel (talk) 10:23, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Wikishovel (talk) 10:25, 26 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Nothing relating to James Wills or the 'Movement for Ireland' in the article. All the citations add up and using the 'page link' tool, I can see correlation between the two subject points brought up within the article. WilliamKingstonCox (talk • contribs) 10:31, 26 October 2016 (UTC) --WilliamKingstonCox (talk) 10:34, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * — Note to closing admin: WilliamKingstonCox (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD.
 * A substantial part of the page was about that person/movement at the time of the AfD nomination and until this edit. AllyD (talk) 13:08, 26 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Can this be resolved as soon as possible please. This AfD entry is top in political lists - can a third party with an extensive knowledge give this article the greenlight to be kept? --WilliamKingstonCox (talk) 10:41, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - Appears to be a hoax - or at the very least OR synthesis, since it is taking and misinterpreting / misordering a selection of genuine but unconnected events in order to claim something new and unsourced: "the ideology that the British Empire should be re-established and continued". Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:06, 26 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - Article may need to be severely amended is confusion is occurring. However, I would like to point out that the topic on the "League of Empire Loyalists" has been linked to the paraphrase - '...and to a lesser extent imperial continuation'. Also, in terms to the Canadian 'loyalists' the paragraph has been opened with "the term itself" - 'itself' here being the keyword.Sabloem (talk) 16:32, 26 October 2016 (UTC) — Sabloem (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of TheHumbugBar (talk • contribs).
 * Exactly, its all synth. League of Empire Loyalists was a genuine 1950s entity, but has nothing to do with the subject of this article, there were inhabitants of America who decided (for allegiance reasons or for their safety) to move to the still British ruled territories in Canada after the War of Independence, but they have nothing to so with the subject of this article or indeed with League of Empire Loyalists, there was a 1997 Ontario state legislature decision to commemorate that migration because it was an important event in the development of Canada, but it has nothing to do with the subject of this article. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:47, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

What happens now? Do we keep, severely amend or delete this article? -TheHumbugBar (talk) 22:11, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * — Note to closing admin: TheHumbugBar (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD.
 * See Guide to deletion and Help, my article got nominated for deletion!. This is a process that takes some time. Kolbasz (talk) 06:22, 27 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment The apparent hoax has now been removed - though we haven't gotten a reason for its inclusion in the first place - but what remains seems to be, as pointed out, original synthesis, so my AfD nomination stands. Kolbasz (talk) 17:33, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep I don't understand whats wrong with it? Its a general political standpoint. JohnTombs48 (talk) 18:37, 27 October 2016 (UTC) - Struck !vote by blocked sock. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 15:50, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It is not a genuine political standpoint. No such "ideology that the British Empire should be re-established and continued" standpoint exists in reality, which is why the claim that such an ideology exists is unsourced. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:00, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Amend What has occurred here is simple - a misunderstanding between two seperate meanings for the same term. The page states two different points in its opening line. I think Imperial continuation is the ideology we will go with for that of the League of Empire Loyalists. For the Canadian situation, is the page on United Empire Loyalists sufficient enough? I think either we keep the page and amend it or we continue the process of AfD and allow other insight from those specialising in the field, like myself, as a postgraduate at the University of Oxford studying British politics. Birmuk (talk) 21:31, 27 October 2016 (UTC) — Birmuk (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of TheHumbugBar (talk • contribs).

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 22:50, 2 November 2016 (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.