Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stop the Rot


 * 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 (no consensus). No clear consensus as to whether it should be kept or merged, but certainly no consensus for an outright delete. The default position of keep seems the best result for now. TigerShark (talk) 22:05, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Stop the Rot

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Stop the Rot seems to be a project of the Liverpool Echo newspaper and (after an internet search) the only sources available are directly related to the Liverpool Echo. A single self-published blog source says the campaign was 'pitiful'. Sionk (talk) 16:36, 30 November 2011 (UTC) NB a request for citations to independent sources has been on the article since March 2010 with no result. Sionk (talk) 16:37, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep I found several references to the effectiveness of the campaign in mobilising public support for preservation and catalysing the City Council's Buildings at Risk programme. Including an EU agency case study, a couple of city council publications, and preservation publications. Stop the Rot also received an award from a national preservation group earlier this month (November '11). I was able to add half a dozen refs to the article without searching on specific buildings. (As well as a 2009 update from the Echo that I placed in external links.) This has demonstrated notability. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:09, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note that Stop the Rot didn't win an award. The Creative Ropeworks Project won an award and Stop the Rot was one of the campaigns highlighted in Liverpool's bid for the award. Stop the Rot gets a few passing mentions, that's all, in a few sources. Sionk (talk) 21:39, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I see about the award - I'd been misled as the Echo no doubt intended me to be. But I have to disagree about "a few passing mentions, that's all". Here's the relevant passage from the article in buildingconservation.com: "The strategy was also supported by notable local community leaders and the local press, which ran a campaign entitled ‘Stop the Rot’. Formed in March 2001, this integrated initiative gave the city council the confidence to deliver the ‘urgent works’ notices required." That positions it as having played a crucial role - as well as presenting it as not just the newspaper. Time and again I found it being presented as having been very important in mobilising public opinion - or giving people a way to express it. The European Programme for Sustainable Urban Development case study says this again and again. On p. 6, under "key actors": "The popularity of the Liverpool Echo's Stop the Rot campaign . . . helped to develop a highly constructive partnership bwteeen leaders of the City Council, English Heritage, Liverpool Vision and the North West Development Agency . . ." and later in that segment, on p. 7, the full-time officer is referred to parenthetically as "LCC's response to Stop the Rot". Also on p. 7: "Residents, civic and amenity societies, pressure groups and campaigners were able to input into the process chiefly through the Stop the Rot forum." It's also listed first under "Success factors". (p. 9). Then on p. 13 the pictures of the Casartelli Building are introduced with "This building was the flagship building in the Liverpool Echo's Stop the Rot Campaign." This is an EU agency, not a branch of the Echo, and the document could hardly emphasise more than it has the importance of Stop the Rot. Plus there are far more non-Echo mentions than I thought I was going to find - and the singling out for mention regarding the award does count there. I think you're setting the bar way too high. I admit I had to add -football to the Google search to filter out all the garbage about the good-for-nothing local team, but I have to disagree with you and note that it's got both local and non-local coverage, IMO in sufficient amounts and not merely passing mentions - the case study for one being far, far beyond that and several of the sources not merely listing it but saying it has played a vital role. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:49, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not setting any bar. WP:N says 'If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article'. I've no axe to grind against the Liverpool Echo either, though I'm aware that newspapers create campaigns which have the ulterior motive of increasing their own importance and popularity, hence finding independent sources is vital. The two good sources you've cited (and the quotes therein) certainly show the creation of the Campaign, in 2001, was a key tipping point and confidence booster to get the Council to do something. Whether that means keeping the separate article or adding a section to Liverpool Echo we'll have to leave someone else to decide. Sionk (talk) 19:15, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * And when I say the two sources are good, I mean they are expert and independent. Stop the Rot is not the subject but receives a handful of worthy mentions, as you have identified. Sionk (talk) 19:32, 2 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep or Merge to Liverpool Echo. This is a tricky one. One would expect a campaign such as this to primarily get local coverage, but as the only local paper of any standing is fronting the campaign, it's difficult to tell whether the campaign is sufficiently notable to attract independent coverage had there been an independent local paper to get noticed by. The coverage from other sources is incidental rather than directly about the campaign. However, there is certainly enough for a mention somewhere, so I wouldn't go as far as delete. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 21:28, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep -- I doubt merging it to the newspaper would be appropriate. Not being a Liverpublian, I am not familiar with the campaign, but I note that the article has been updated in 2011.so that it would not seem to be a mere will of the wisp, like any newspaper campaigns, which last just as long as they might increase readership.  Peterkingiron (talk) 19:03, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * NB the article was created in 2007 and last substantially updated in 2007. Since then categories and external links have been added. The 2011 updates occurred after the AfD nomination and it is questionable, depending on your point of view, whether these updates demonstrate notability or not.Sionk (talk) 16:42, 4 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - TP 01:52, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge /Redirect to Liverpool Echo. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:49, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge /Redirect to Liverpool Echo. --Legis (talk - contribs) 08:18, 8 December 2011 (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.