Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flexible Support Fund (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Agreed. Article has been significantly improved since the last AfD nomination. Closing without prejudice against renomination. (non-admin closure) — ☮ JAaron95  Talk   19:37, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Flexible Support Fund
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I just voted keep in the last AfD because the author was willing to improve the article. Seems like the author hasn't done anything. So, I keep my word and renominate this article for deletion with the same rationale the last nominator had. 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. (P.S. I personally have less/no interest in the outcome of this discussion) Regards — ☮ JAaron95  Talk   07:17, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. — ☮  JAaron95  Talk   07:32, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:12, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep previous AfD was a unanimous keep, a quick search reveals that there is more content available. The article has already been vastly improved since the original PROD and subsequent AfD nom.  See also: WP:DEADLINE. -- 009o9 (talk) 16:14, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The above two links to the same diff. The unanimous keep was because the author was willing to improve the article. The article has to be improved at some point. No deadline leads to infinity. The deadline is now. Regards— ☮ JAaron95  Talk   16:40, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I corrected the second diff in my comment. WP:DEADLINENOW (also an essay) prescribes, "...if an article contains false or unverifiable content, you should correct it as soon as possible." Great Britain is not within my area of expertise, but all I'm seeing here is a decent start article. I feel that the subject is notable and it appears there is adequate coverage to write a complete article WP:NEXIST. Additionally, bringing NPOV accusations (I don't see a slant, or a motive for one) in this nomination, hamstrings the editor that you've apparently made some kind of side-deal with for your earlier keep vote. -- 009o9 (talk) 17:39, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Side-deal? Hmmm.— ☮ JAaron95  Talk   18:17, 26 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Are you not the person who set conditions on your support Here, introducing a 30 day limit that nobody else mentioned? Further, you've simply restated the original AfD reasoning, which was for a completely different version. and the article is vastly improved since the speedy made by the same editor.
 * In essence, your AfD reasoning boils down to "Seems like the author hasn't done anything." I'm not seeing that in WP:DEL-REASON and IMHO the current version of this article is WP:ATD regardless to one voter's conditions in the previous keep AfD. User:DanielJCooper has offered his expertise to voluntarily offer his time to document GB social services.  I see no reason to put time constraints on his work, nor delete his useful contributions. -- 009o9 (talk) 19:32, 26 September 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.