Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/March to Leave


 * 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. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 03:53, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

March to Leave

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

May not meet the requirements of WP:GNG B dash (talk) 14:30, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:57, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:57, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:57, 26 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep: easily passes WP:GNG, as multiple reliable, independent, mainstream reliable sources for this article can easily be found via a Google news search for '"march to leave" 2019': see, for example,, , , , , ... Searching for '"march for brexit" 2019' finds still more. -- The Anome (talk) 17:28, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:SUSTAINED and WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE and merge into a subsection of Aftermath_of_the_2016_United_Kingdom_European_Union_membership_referendum. I'd be open to an independent article if this march is still being discussed in a few months, but as of now it appears to have not even ended yet.  - GretLomborg (talk) 16:24, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: it's supposed to arrive in London tomorrow (and they'd better get a move on to achieve that!) so deletion because it hasn't ended, particularly when it's due to end before this AfD process finishes, seems rather premature to me. We should see even more coverage of it then, particularly regarding numerical comparisons with the somewhere-between-300,000-and-1-million-strong People's Vote March. -- The Anome (talk) 11:11, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I wasn't suggesting that it should be deleted because the march isn't over, but because it's not clear that anyone will care about it after it's been over for a short time (like a couple of months). The key thing to establish notability will be that future coverage.  BTW, I agree with the merge proposal in 2019 People's Vote March, I think it has the same issues.  IMHO, these are smaller pieces of a larger notable article. - GretLomborg (talk) 14:58, 28 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:GNG as there is adequate independent coverage which can be seen by clicking the links alongside the "Find sources" prompt in the header to this discussion. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:03, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep for now as this meets WP:GNG and is covered by multiple sources. Whether in the long term we merge this with something else (for example the march's organisers) or leave it as a standalone article is something we may need to think about in a few months from now. I don't think this has had the same amount of coverage as the 2019 People's Vote March, nor did it even have a comparable number of attendees. This is Paul (talk) 14:08, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - the fact that there has been ongoing coverage for over a fortnight now (top two on a quick search are FT and Reaction), suggests at least a reasonable case for sustained. There may well be a case for merging this, but I don't think that the merge is needed to retain the article - it should be kept, and then a suitable merge discussion raised then. Nosebagbear (talk) 23:00, 2 April 2019 (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.