Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flexible Support Fund


 * 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. ceradon ( talk •  edits ) 03:05, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Flexible Support Fund

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Seems to fail WP:GNG. Focuses quite a but on a controversy- perhaps WP:NPOV issues. I can't seem to view one of the sources. Another is the daily mirror, frowned upon per WP:PUS. The third appears to be a government source (not independent from the subject). At this time, on my end, it really only has one reliable source. Most other sources I can find are directly involved with the fund (WP:NRVE). Perhaps a mention at Welfare state in the United Kingdom or another article similar to that (maybe not that one specifically) would be warranted, but I'm not sure about a stand alone article. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 04:11, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:43, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I disagree with deletion. It will be interesting what other people think DanielJCooper (talk) 17:00, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep (possibly merge) -- The UK benefits system comprises a number of separate benefits. It is appropriate to have articles on each, particularly ones that may have a lower profile.  A Government source providing information about what benefits that government is providing may not be an independent source, but it will not be unreliable.  I agree that what the Daily Mirror said about it is insignificant.  Godsy's suggested merge target will certainly be far too general, but it is possible there is a potential merge target that is more closely related to the subject.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:24, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment This states investigation was actually a C4 Dispaches one not a Daily Mirror. Personally I find it notable that a Government Dept is trying to deter applicants to this fund. DanielJCooper (talk) 20:59, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment There are lots of features of the UK welfare system beyond the main benefits that are covered poorly on Wikipedia. It is an area of systemic bias. Before I started we didn't have articles on the Work Programme or even the bedroom tax. Areas for improvement: Discretionary Housing Payment,Exceptional Housing Payment the post-Social Fund Local Welfare Assistance Schemes, Budgeting Loans, Hardship payments. Unfortunately much of this is only stuff would ever know about unless you work in a Citizens Advice Bureau in a deprived area and people who make use of budgeting loans don't seem to edit wikipedia. If this article survives I might try and improve things a bit  DanielJCooper (talk) 20:59, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ☮  JAaron95  Talk   13:49, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Anyone else? Ironically putting this article up for deletion is detering me from improving it in case it gets deleted anyway! I'm happy to work on it if it survives DanielJCooper (talk) 17:33, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - Supporting . He's willing to fix the article, let's wait and see if the fix works. Will check back the article (if it's kept) in a month and nominate it for deletion, if no fix has been applied. Regards— ☮ JAaron95  Talk   13:24, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - Always in favor of keeping an article which might be brought up to standards. Go for it, .  Onel 5969  TT me 14:28, 19 August 2015 (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.