Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mercia Movement


 * 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   delete.  MBisanz  talk 03:49, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Mercia Movement


Due to related discussion and to centralise we need to also review:
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Declined speedy. Debate on talk page was becoming a mini-AFD anyhow. No comment either way but this needs a debate not unilateral admin action. Pedro : Chat  10:34, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * It should be noted that the debate taking place is about three very similar articles - Mercia Movement, Sovereign Mercia and Wessex Society. Can we have the debate for all three in the same place? ðarkun coll 10:54, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Doing.... Pedro : Chat  11:00, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ Pedro : Chat  11:04, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. These articles give useful and interesting information about local movements, and are linked to from the main articles on Mercia and Wessex. ðarkun coll 11:07, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. They are very stub-like at the moment, and it would be difficult to avoid being of the opinion that they all should be deleted because there is so little to go on as regards content. I suggest that effort is made to bulk them up and expand them with whatever reliable sources and citations can be discovered over the next few days (not necessarily just on the web, which is probably a restricted source) and consequently I for one will delay my opinion until near the end of the debate.  DDStretch    (talk)  11:41, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:55, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:56, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply. Working on DDStretch's suggestion above, I've so far been able to expand one of the articles at least (Sovereign Mercia). What happens if we can find info on one or two of the groups, but not the other(s)? I'm assuming that the retention or deletion of one or two of these articles does not necessecarily entail the retention or deletion of all three, even though, for convenience, we are discussing them in the same place. ðarkun coll 14:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, there's no reason why editors cannot discuss deletion or merger of one article whilst recommending another should be kept. The discussion is centralised, but that does not mean that the outcome of the discussion will be the same for each article. Pedro : Chat  14:37, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. A minor separatist movement apparently backed by a notorious cartel of Mercian coconut farmers.  One source given in Sovereign Mercia is to Prediction magazine, apparently about the founding of the movement in 1985.  The other, to the Birmingham Mail, apparently documents a 2007 name change.  This level of activity does not suggest a separatist movement with a great deal of notability or support.  The other sources are internal.  If any are kept, surely Mercia Movement and Sovereign Mercia could merge. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:16, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. How many sources are required? There is no reason to assume that these are all there are. And I don't really understand your comment about coconut farmers. As for a merger, these two parties seem to have opposed policies. Should we merge the articles on the Labour and Conservative parties, since both happen to be British? ðarkun coll 16:20, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, coconut farmers. In Mercia. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 20:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. These articles all fail WP:VER and WP:N. In the case of Sovereign Mercia there are only 8 ghits, and I really don't think that a link to a local hockey website counts as an adequate reference! Mercia Movement is no better - few ghits and no references. Wessex Society might make the grade - most ghits are about something else but it does seem to have some level of activity so there might be acceptable references somewhere - but where are they? andy (talk) 15:18, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. It is misleading to use Google as our only source, and the low number of ghits might simply be a result of the recent name change. I shall, in any case, continue looking for more citations. It would be a shame, I think, to lose these intrinsically interesting articles. [Update] Okay, I've just added another citation. ðarkun coll 16:44, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you have misunderstood the policies on verifiability and notability. Firstly, Google is not a source. It's a tool for finding sources and a low number of hits means that reliable sources are likely to be hard to come by. Basically, nobody is talking about these societies on the web, which may well mean nobody is talking anywhere else either.


 * So sources will have to be found the old fashioned way. And what do we have for Sovereign Mercia? A 23 year old article in a mystical magazine, an utterly irrelevant link to a sports website which doesn't seem to mention the subject, and two references to local news articles which are unverifiable. The online archive of the Birmingham Mail has articles from September 12 2007 but none that mention Sovereign Mercia; and Central News doesn't seem to have an archive reaching back to 1994.


 * Mercia Movement is completely unsourced. Wessex Society now has one reference to a single sentence in the Sunday Times. Please read WP:N: "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". The Sunday Times is reliable and independent but a single sentence scarcely counts as signficant, and as far as the other articles go there is zero coverage as far as I can see. andy (talk) 18:31, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The nature of the sources available depends entirely on the subject matter. I don't think any of these are unreasonable. ðarkun coll 18:41, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Wessex Society has received significant coverage in the Western Daily Press, though not all none of it is archived on that newspaper's website Nick xylas (talk) 19:36, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Merely stating that there's significant coverage isn't enough - you have to reference it in the article so that anyone who wants to can check it. See WP:PROVEITandy (talk) 10:28, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with this, and it is the reason why I thought an AfD was the better option to use for these articles to settle the matter more clearly and decisively. In effect the bluff is being called: if there are good reasons to keep them, then before this AfD is closed, one would expect to see the references and content being added to each article; if not, then I see no reason to keep any of them. You are being given time to add the content and references, and I suggest good use is made of this time.  DDStretch    (talk)  10:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll see what I can find in my clippings collection, and encourage others to do likewise. Nick xylas (talk) 13:49, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I've just checked the recently added references for Wessex Society. Not very good at all! One is a link to a gif of a small green map with some bits coloured red; another is a link to a newspaper article that requires credit card details before you can access it (I've removed the url); and another is a book where the society is given a couple of parenthetic mentions in single sentences - definitely not significant coverage. andy (talk) 23:30, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The map wasn't recently added, it's been there a while. I have now added some more citations from my newspaper clippings file. Sadly I don't have URLs for them, but the Internet isn't the be all and end all of sources, and not everything is online.Nick xylas (talk) 02:59, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete not notable, looks like a minor eccentricity not a serious issue  -- Snowded   TALK  21:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete lacks notability. GoodDay (talk) 14:46, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete --As an Englishman, living in Mercia, I have never heard of eitehr of the Mercian movements, and thus assume that they are a small group of cranks. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:24, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That's not very nice now is it? There's no need to be nasty.  Plus WP:IVENOTHEARDOFIT isn't an argument. Sticky Parkin 03:51, 21 November 2008 (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.