Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeremy Corbyn leadership campaign, 2015


 * 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. After the success of the campaign, all opinions have been "keep"; a "delete" result seems out of the question now.  Sandstein  13:06, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Jeremy Corbyn leadership campaign, 2015

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article is a WP:FORK an unnecessary spin-off of Jeremy Corbyn. By developing an article of this nature on only one out of four candidates, it gives undue weight to one part of an ongoing political campaign in which four candidates including Corbyn are equally involved. There has been no consensus (and little discussion) at Talk:Jeremy Corbyn to justify the formation of this article. The article should be merged back to the Corbyn article, and relevant parts (balanced in relation to the other three candidates) should be added to the Labour Party (UK) leadership election, 2015 article. In any event, the article title needs to change - leadership of what? Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:58, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree, Wikipedia must not be seen to be giving more weight to the role of one candidate while the election is ongoing Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 09:25, 30 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I can agree on principle that Wikipedia must be seen as impartial during an election campaign – perhaps a suitable compromise would be to move the article to a sandbox and wait for the election result to be announced in September? Willwal, (talk) 11:14, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * If the issue is bias, User:Ghmyrtle, create articles for the other candidates then.... AusLondonder (talk) 15:31, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Bias is one of the issues, but not the only one. More material on the four candidates and their reception should be included in the overall election campaign article.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:58, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. --  1Wiki8 Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR  (talk) 09:06, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. --  1Wiki8 Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR  (talk) 09:06, 30 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. I think this falls under WP:NOTNEWS.  While there's a lot of coverage at the moment, I can't see this being considered encyclopaedic in ten years' time.  GoldenRing (talk) 10:23, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Labour Party (UK) leadership election, 2015 and merge content of use into Jeremy Corbyn. While Corbyn has more popularity, it does give undue weight to one candidate. The article also feels a little crystal-ball like. Myname is not dave (talk/contribs) 13:22, 30 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Move to a temporary sandbox and delete article – wait for result of leadership election before moving content back into its own article. This solution would avoid Wikipedia being seen as anything but impartial. Willwal, (talk) 15:09, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Meets WP:GNG. Just because articles don't exist yet for other candidates is not a reason to delete this. Instead, articles should be created for other candidates. It is clear this material cannot fit in his BLP but is still worthy of Wikipedia. This election is the first one open to a broader electorate, similar to a US presidential primaries. Many articles such as this exist for US presidential campaigns, even for lesser known candidates such as Bill Richardson presidential campaign, 2008, John Edwards presidential campaign, 2008, Chris Dodd presidential campaign, 2008, Mike Gravel presidential campaign, 2008 and Evan Bayh presidential campaign, 2008. WP:GEOBIAS should be considered here as well. AusLondonder (talk) 15:29, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep I agree totally with AusLondonder. Boscaswell (talk) 05:39, 31 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I think the problem is that there would not be enough content for an article about the other candidate's campaigns, but if there was one for just Corbyn it would seem unfair. Comparison with the USA is slightly unfair because their Presidential candidates are much more high-profile compared to our parliamentary system. Could you explain why you think moving the "responses" section into the labour leadership article would not be a fair compromise? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 15:41, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with that. Even if his is larger, the others would still meet WP:GNG as well. This is a high-profile election, and the first US-style primary. The candidates for US Democratic Party nomination in 2008 I mentioned weren't high profile. AusLondonder (talk) 15:44, 30 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree that articles for the other candidates would be needed if they didn't already have articles about them, but considering the fact they do, I don't see that there is enough content to warrant a separate article. I feel like we are not going to agree on this so maybe we should see what others have to say. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 15:51, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It is really not that similar to a US presidential primary. It is for leadership of a political party, not a precursor for a democratic election of a head of state.  We already have an article on the collective campaign.  The relevant material - and material on the other candidates - should be included there, not in a freestanding article.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:58, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * This is a precursor for a democratic election for a head of government. Can't see the difference. AusLondonder (talk) 16:14, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * No, it seems you can't. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:18, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * What is it then? WP:GEOBIAS? AusLondonder (talk) 16:21, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * And, frankly, you, as nom should be making clear the difference. Your argument thus far been nothing other than "The other candidates don't have articles". Well, in the case get to work and make them rather than nominating articles that meet WP:GNG within minutes of creation. AusLondonder (talk) 17:50, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * AusLondonder could you please set out why you think putting the "responses" section into the leadership election article would not work - Ghmyrtle and I have explained why we think putting it into its own article would be a bad idea but you have not yet said why you think our compromise of putting into the election article would be inadequate Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 18:47, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I've already said that I think an article for each candidate's campaign would be appropriate now the election has been more of a Presidential style campaign with a wider electorate and I believe an article for each candidate would meet WP:GNG. I think the campaign articles bring together all the information in one place. AusLondonder (talk) 23:25, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Four different editors (myself, Ghmyrtle, Willwal and GoldenRing) have set out why we don't think this article would be a good idea. There is enough space in the Leadership article to include all the media responses as well - surely that is the best place to collate them, and avoids the problems we have discussed. If you wish, we can ask a mod for help on this one as it is clearly a very controversial topic and any suggestion that Wikipedia was biased could be extremely serious Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 07:41, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * We should note that, who created the Jeremy Corbyn leadership campaign, 2015 article, has offered to take it out of article space, and hold it in a sandbox, at least until the election result is known. We should accept that suggestion.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:47, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It does not matter. The article does not belong to the creator. No consensus currently exists to delete. This article, without a shadow of a doubt, meets WP:GNG. Mitt Romney won the Republican nomination for US president in 2012. He lost the election. He has the following articles, amongst others (including a campaign article): Business career of Mitt Romney, List of Mitt Romney presidential campaign endorsements, 2012, Public image of Mitt Romney, Mitt Romney dog incident, Binders full of women while 12 Republican candidates, including the obscure, have articles. WP:GEOBIAS. AusLondonder (talk) 15:30, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * In addition, the noms deletion rationale is concerning. Firstly, they cite WP:FORK, which says "Mirrors and forks of Wikipedia are publications that mirror (copy exactly) or fork (copy, but change parts of the material of) Wikipedia. Many correctly follow the licensing terms; however, many others fail – accidentally or intentionally – to place the notice required by these terms. Such pages are listed below in alphabetical order. If you find such links, please add them here." - utterly irrelevant to this article. They then claim this article gives undue weight to Corbyn because no other candidate has one. Create them then! You don't delete a good article which meets WP:GNG because other good articles don't exist yet. The nom says "In any event, the article title needs to change - leadership of what?" - the Labour Party (UK) is the answer to that question. AusLondonder (talk) 15:34, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Forget about WP:FORK - I must have misremembered the term used when part of an existing article is copy-pasted to form a new article. Whatever the term is, that is what happened here.  Regarding the article title, you need to set out what a new title should be.   Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:59, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * With regards to the title of the article, I suppose it could be renamed Jeremy Corbyn party leadership campaign, 2015 – however none of the US presidential campaign article titles have had to specify the presidency of which country: Bernie Sanders presidential campaign, 2016 rather than 'Bernie Sanders United States presidency campaign, 2016'. Willwal, (talk) 20:40, 1 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep: If we can have ones of US presidential candidate's campaigns, I see no reason why the same principle can't apply to the campaigns to be leader of one of the UK's main political parties.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 21:27, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep: my position and vote have been changed by the arguments put forward by AusLondonder, Boscaswell and The C of E. There is precedent with articles for the campaigns run by presidential candidates – such articles were created prior to any election result being known, and no question of impartiality was raised then. Furthermore I think we can broadly agree that Corbyn's campaign has far greater significance over those run by his opponents – regardless of whether you agree with his politics, Corbyn has featured prominently in national and international news on a regular basis. I hardly think that Wikipedia can be accused of showing bias, were it to create an article that reflects this. -Willwal (talk) 10:02, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge and redirect - the keep per NOTABILITY, the merge and redirect per NPOV. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:08, 2 September 2015 (UTC).


 * For the record, with regard to those voting in favour of merging content with the Labour Party (UK) leadership election, 2015 article, the section about 'Reactions' to the Corbyn campaign, has already been merged into a section on the aforementioned article entitled 'Media reactions'. Willwal (talk) 14:14, 4 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep It's a real thing/phrase, being widely used in the press. God save Britian.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:18, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * We actually agree during an AFD! That's a change, User:E.M.Gregory! :) AusLondonder (talk) 10:59, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * True, and nice. I'm all about sources.  This topic is well-supported.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:28, 6 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete just really yesterdays newspaper stuff, its not a presidential election just the leader of a British political party, I cant see why it should not be in Labour Party (UK) leadership election, 2015 or similar to create a balanced view of all the candidates positions. MilborneOne (talk) 10:33, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * User:MilborneOne Are you saying that candidates for party nomination in US presidential elections deserve such pages but not British candidates? AusLondonder (talk) 10:52, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry that is an other stuff exists argument and unrelated to this discussion. MilborneOne (talk) 10:57, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * But you made that comment? You said "its not a presidential election just the leader of a British political party" AusLondonder (talk) 10:58, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * That was to answer the comments above related to comparing this to American presidential election candidates to say that it wasnt relevant to this discussion, which it isnt. MilborneOne (talk) 11:23, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I really must question this assertion of "yesterdays (sic) newspaper stuff". Even if the Corbyn campaign were to very suddenly plunge into the abyss, lose spectacularly etc., that does not mean that Wikipedia should simply ignore the very considerable impact that Corbyn campaign has had on the Labour Party (UK) leadership election, on the size of the party's membership and the amount of national and international media coverage, high-profile interventions etc. that have occurred in the past 2-3 months. Furthermore, it is quite likely that the Corbyn leadership campaign – even if unsuccessful electorally – will have an impact on the policies of whoever the next leader is.


 * As it happens, there is very little evidence to sustain your argument that Corbyn's leadership campaign is yesterday's news and no longer relevant, given the fact that newspapers, magazines, online news outlets and social media are still reporting on his progress. Willwal (talk) 19:07, 5 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I still stand by my opinion, I dont have a problem with it being mentioned in one of the election articles but it really is not that important for a stand-alone article, what the media and politicians get excited about doesnt mean that the general public actually take much note and would not consider an election for a leader of a political party to be worthy of an article. MilborneOne (talk) 19:22, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * But it really seems that you are giving your opinion about the state of the general public's view of something. There is a great deal of evidence to contest your view – that the public aren't engaged in Corbyn's leadership campaign – but even so, the question of the article's notability and relevance (WP:NOTE) is largely covered by Wikipedia's general guidelines: "Significant coverage" backed up by a range of reliable secondary sources – where does this article fall short in meeting such criteria? Willwal (talk) 21:11, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * AusLondonder, there are immense differences between an American Presidential election and leadership of a UK party, the second isn't even really comparable with US primaries. Only paid up party members, are eligible to vote. I don't see why the encyc content could not go into the general article until such time as the dust settles, maybe his campaign will prove very significant historically, but at the moment we are crystal-ball gazing. At the present moment the article reads as his manifesto, and I wonder whether that is the proper purpose of WP. Incidentally, I'm none too sure that articles about ongoing US election candidates are actually an asset to WP, we aren't a newspaper. Pincrete (talk) 22:08, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, Pincrete one of the main controversies about the election campaign was because the Labour election DID allow anyone to vote and not just paid-up members.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 23:06, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't say it's fair to call the content of this article "his manifesto". There is a great deal of balance on the various subsections, with criticisms from anti-Corbyn voices represented. Willwal (talk) 22:48, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The main election page gives a far more rounded picture of the controversies, no mention on 'his' article that every living ex-Labour leader has opposed him, little mention of the various 'vote-stacking' controversies and counter accusations. The election does not allow anyone to vote and has been mired in controversy as a result, as I understand it it is party members, but disallowing 'entryist' voters. A 'manifesto' is precisely what it is and if that is its purpose, fine, what is our purpose in hosting it ?Pincrete (talk) 09:43, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Your comments here have been so fundamentally wrong and contrary to policy. What mannifesto includes criticism and media reaction? Why do you believe US presidential primaries are inherently more notable than de fact British political primaries? Primaries in the US require party support as well, not just anyone can vote AusLondonder (talk) 10:04, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * AusLondonder, where exactly do I say or imply that US elections are more important than UK ones, please don't make assumptions about my comments. As it happens I'm an ex UK LabParty member, now living outside UK. Manifesto because it states his position on all issues, regardless of whether they have come up in the election, and are you seriously suggesting that unilateral nuclear disarming and leaving NATO has only caused two criticisms. As I said, I don't mind if it is a manifesto, but let's call it that, simply listing candidate's positions, not pretending to give balanced, objective coverage.


 * The present article fails to mention little details like every previous Lab leader and many ex-ministers vociferously opposing his candicacy, while Boris Johnson has applauded it ! But all that is beside the point but goes to show how difficult it is to be neutral about unfolding matters, so what exactly is the encyc advantage while the election is underway? If you visit any of the US election pages, you find near constant edit-warring, AfDs etc, WP is not a newspaper. This article will have no impact on the outcome, voters will not look to WP for guidance, however I think it is not an asset to us. Pincrete (talk) 18:06, 6 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Who on Earth is suggesting that the article would have an impact on the outcome? That certainly is not part of Wikipedia's guideline for notability. Reactions (negative and positive) to the Corbyn campaign have been merged with the Labour Party (UK) leadership election, 2015 article, as agreed above. This article was created to reflect the considerable impact that the Corbyn campaign has had on the leadership contest, the policies of other candidates and (as many in and outside of the party have suggested) the future of the Labour Party – not to promote Corbyn as a means to political ends. Willwal (talk) 20:57, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it obvious that the 'this is not going to effect outcome', is saying that the clear lack of balance will not affect the result, not that it should do so. So, reactions have been moved to another article, that's an interesting way of agreeing that the article does not even attempt balance. So what is this article about, since it is not about his campaign? Why would impact be on a seperate page from the election impacted? There is actually more info about impact on the main page, (which everyone would probably agree has 'widened the debate' about what sort of party Labour wants to be). Thankyou, you have persuaded me that this page is little more than a PoV fork of the main leadership page.Pincrete (talk) 08:08, 7 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete just his manifesto + yesterday's newspaper stuff, it's not a presidential election, which evolve over an extended period of primaries etc, nothing here could not merge effectively with either the '2015 election' or his own page. After the election there may be ency material analysing the impact, though even then it would be better presented within the context of the whole election. Besides all UK/US comparisons are 'other stuff exists' arguments. Pincrete (talk) 08:19, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Whilst your arguments are about ignoring WP:GNG and WP:GEOBIAS. AusLondonder (talk) 09:19, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll happily ignore 'GEOBIAS' when the argument is simply 'Hillary' gets one so Jeremy should have one too. That is not because I think Jeremy is less important than Hillary. I think we would all benefit if our coverage of ongoing elections was more defined (US or UK or ?? … the BBC itself has such guidelines). I'd be a little more persuaded that this was not simply a PoV fork, if editors defending it were a little busier including criticism of JC (has no one in the UK mentioned that he has never even held a shadow portfolio ?), or writing articles for the other candidates to whom the GNG and GEOBIAS arguments equally apply. Ordinarily, the absence of an 'equiv' article, wouldn't be a factor, but in the limited time frame of this election, I believe it inevitably is, and is covered by 'NOT NEWS'. Pincrete (talk) 11:49, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Merge / Redirect - I'm not really sure about this one. I feel inclined, though, to think that what's really ideal is to expand the Labour Party (UK) leadership election, 2015 article and make that better, using all of this information in a succinct way. That would be most helpful to readers in my view. Yes, I know that the main leadership election page already has some material w.r.t Corbyn's history, viewpoints, etc, but it could be even better. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 00:30, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a valid spinoff per the guideline Content forking and the information page Splitting. Since including this information in the main article would be undue weight, it is sensible to spin it off into a subarticle, which was done here. The numerous sources in the article clearly demonstrate that the topic meets Notability. Cunard (talk) 05:28, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete all of this will be better covered in the main page, and the same goes for all the other three candidates.Johnmcintyre1959 (talk) 09:49, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, S warm   ♠  21:28, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep I do not think we should treat UK articles different to US ones in this instance, and even some minor US Democrat and Republican nomination hopefuls, eg Lawrence Lessig and Jim Gilmore, have campaign articles, while other minor hopefuls do not - and this seems to create no WP problems. Also Corbyn's campaign is especially notable as it is associated with a very large increase in party membership, and has had exceptionally large media coverage. Rwendland (talk) 14:27, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong keep: Easily notable and newsworthy enough with more than enough sources to warrant its own page rather than becoming an overly beefy subsection on any other article. As for the other three candidates' campaigns, Corbyn's is exceptional in its newsworthiness, impact, and the debate it's stirred, all of which is too much to cover in a subsection. SnoopingAsUsual (talk) 10:03, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong keep: This is obviously notable and deserves its own article. As mentioned before, the article passes Wikipedia's notability guideline for sure, and including this amount of information on Corbyn's page or on the Labour leadership page woud def. be undue weight. – Zumoarirodoka(talk)(email) 19:36, 11 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep The campaign has had an enormous amount of coverage and is definitely notable. But I do think the article should be changed to focus on the reception towards his campaign rather than his policies (which belong more in the main Corbyn article). (ps #JezWeDid!) -- Loeba (talk) 11:46, 12 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm leaning towards Very strong keep, especially considering he has now won the race. This campaign had a huge cultural impact on the United Kingdom, dwarfing the other campaigns by far. If there is an issue regarding bias, then articles should be created for the other candidates, and if need be, parts of this page rewritten. (#JezWeDid!!!) Nbdelboy (talk) 12:15, 12 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.