Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Labour for a Republic


 * 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 redirect to Republicanism in the United Kingdom. There is (narrowly) consensus to not cover this as a separate article, but with substantial opposition. In light of that, as a compromise I'm redirecting to where it is already covered instead of deleting, allowing content to be merged from the history.  Sandstein  10:58, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Labour for a Republic

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This article fails Wikipedia notability requirements, uses bad sources, and has an author who is too close to the organization. I am fine with merging the content into a general article concerning Republicanism in the UK, but this organization does not warrant its own article. Additionally, it fails WP:NOT; this article is being used as a means of promotion and self-advertising. Auror Andrachome (talk) 05:25, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:28, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:28, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:40, 11 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep - yes, I was involved with the organisation, and declared my potential conflict of interest, but I'm not involved with it now. There was already an attempt after creation to have it merged with the Republicanism in the United Kingdom article. I then added more sources, and it has stayed for over two years, until Auror Andrachome, an editor with only 242 edits since 2010, decided to start merging it again. The editor then reverted attempts to restore it. User:Mikehawk10 last reverted this merger, saying "This redirect is controversial. Open an AFD if you believe the article's topic is not notable, but please stop warring over whether or not this ought to be a redirect". Auror Andrachome reverted this article being restored twice in 24 hours, and a third time within 48 hours. Even if they did not think the organisation merited an article, engaging in edit warring isn't the way to build consensus over this. It may be a fair point for them to argue that the number of page views does not confer notability, but at the same time, it can't be overlooked: the article has had 21,450 views since its creation in February 2019, averaging over 1,000 views a month over the last three months. The organisation itself may be minor, although it has been reported on in the media, and I also think it's a good place for discussing the Labour Party's history of republicanism more generally. I think merging the whole article into Republicanism in the UK would make the latter too long. Auror Andrachome claims that by me being a member of another republican organisation, Republic, I am too close to the subject. Plenty of editors who are members of political organisations edit articles on those subjects, they just don't declare it on their user page - as I have done.--TrottieTrue (talk) 13:23, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article's subject has been subject of in-depth coverage from multiple reliable sources, and thus passes WP:GNG. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 18:50, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Existing content of an article is irrelevant in determining notability at AfD. The mere fact that there is a significant tendency of republicanism within the alternative governing party of the UK which runs at around twice the rate of the general population is notable. I could see the article more usefully being about republicanism in the Labour Party in general, there is more than adequate RSing to establish this as an issue deserving of an article in its own right,     but there are still adequate reliable sources for the current campaign itself.


 * Regards,--Goldsztajn (talk) 21:45, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete I might have missed something since there's a lot of sources here, but it looks like this fails WP:NORG, and books from 2011 can't talk about an organisation founded in 2012. There's lots of possible sources talking about Labour and republicanism, but this is about a very minor part of the party, the BBC article doesn't talk about the specific organisation significantly, and the other sources are lacking. Note my delete !vote only goes towards this being a stand-alone page about a non-notable organisation: there may be other places to move or merge some of the content on the page, as a topic on republicanism in the party may be notable, but this is not the right place for it. SportingFlyer  T · C  23:17, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CommanderWaterford (talk) 08:34, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Describes a minority movement within the party. Topic can be covered at Republicanism_in_the_United_Kingdom, however having a separate article would be a case of WP:UNDUE weight. MrsSnoozyTurtle 10:06, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete: The 2012 and 2014 articles about attempts to start this group and the brief mention of a picnic they were organising in 2016 are effectively describing their non-notability rather than demonstrating the reverse. As others have said, the Republicanism in the United Kingdom article is a broader and better context and already has a brief mention of this group. Fails to demonstrate WP:NORG. AllyD (talk) 17:37, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Other organisations/groups affiliated to political parties have their own articles. Labour is the main party of opposition and republicanism is growing, so this article is significant. Denham331 (talk) 20:08, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * That doesn't really apply here, though - this is a specific organisation within the party which clearly fails to meet our notability guidelines for organisations. I think some voters are conflating the topic of "Republicanism within Labour" (which may well be notable) with this specific, founded-in-2012 sub-organisation (which is not.) SportingFlyer  T · C  20:45, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 19:35, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - A lot of this article seems to be about the history of republicanism in the Labour Party rather than this specific organisation, which is a fairly recent development. The history of the Labour Party figures (like Keir Hardie and Tony Benn) and groups' views on whether Britain should be a republic is possibly notable enough for an article so perhaps retitling and slightly refocusing the article might be a way forward instead of deletion? Dunarc (talk) 22:56, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * As I noted in my delete comment above, I think refocusing would make this a viable article, and it seems like several other votes have voted on the possible refocusing, but I don't want this article kept on that technicality when the specific organisation the rest of the history is coatracked onto is clearly not notable. Maybe merging the historical information to Republicanism in the United Kingdom would work as a starter, and then maybe splitting that into a Labour page if it's large enough? SportingFlyer  T · C  00:06, 28 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that. I basically agree with your concerns. I would certainly say the article as it stands is not primarily about the specific organisation it is supposed to be about and from what I can see the organisation does not clearly meet notability standards. I would have no problem with approach you suggest. There is quite a lot of duplicated content between this and the current republicanism in the UK article anyway so perhaps a split would only be needed in the future if that article gets bigger. Dunarc (talk) 20:05, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I would be happy with this article being renamed as "Republicanism in the Labour Party (UK)", with a section on the group Labour for a Republic. That way it can keep much of the content, which is clearly of interest to many readers, even if the group itself may not yet be. I don’t mind restructuring the article to reflect the new title and focus.—TrottieTrue (talk) 00:01, 10 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete or merge back. This is a movement in a party, more than an intendent group. Bearian (talk) 16:40, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. This won't seem like a very original contribution to the discussion but here goes: the subject fails both WP:GNG (no in-depth coverage whatsoever) and WP:NORG (on all counts). When the actual subject (not discussing present content but the subject) is isolated by removing the padding that artificially inflates the scope of the article, this is made more clear (see: ver; compare with a previous version at the time of the keep !votes: ver). Note: I disagree with an implication coming from the delete side that a minority movement or a fringe movement does not deserve an article in general -- this specific group (mostly on the social media) doesn't. — Alalch Emis (talk) 18:12, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * There are other articles at List of organisations associated with the Labour Party (UK) which would fail notability requirements by these standards, such as Labour Muslim Network.—TrottieTrue (talk) 19:50, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * that's eminently possible — Alalch Emis (talk) 21:03, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * BTW I kind of went ahead and produced what I think is a good end state for the content of this article, within the Republicanism in the United Kingdom; you can see my reasoning in the diffs. — Alalch Emis (talk) 21:52, 11 June 2021 (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.