Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Independent Group


 * 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 speedy keep. per WP:SNOW as it is already evident that there is no support for the nomination. (non-admin closure) Andrew D. (talk) 13:11, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

The Independent Group

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A classic case of not only WP:NOTNEWS and WP:TOOSOON. In six months w, when the dust has settled, (I'm an optimist) it might be possible to know whether this group- (which does not at present seem to be gaining much more support...) is anytging more than yet another small speck on the whirling cesspool of UK politics, which is certainly not the anarchy in the UK that John Lydon (pbuh) wanted. TheLongTone (talk) 12:19, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:25, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:25, 28 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep. The organization is already clearly notable - as is the event (the split from Labour). Even if this will be a short-lived group (not worthwhile covering separately from the event or a successor/merged entity) the event would pass NEVENT anyway. Seeing we have a huge amount of INDEPTH sources for this (as well as 11 seats in parliament) - this passes NORG and NEVENT. Icewhiz (talk) 12:27, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep per Icewhizz. A very brave nomination. The group has received sustained, persistent coverage in a plethora of reliable sources. Has already passed NNEWS, clearlly passes WP:ORGDEPTH: Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization. ——  SerialNumber  54129  12:34, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Of course it has a lot of coverage, it's about snecking Brexodus. See WP:NOTNEWS, please. As many political commentators have written or said, (for instance Jonathan Friedman in Saturday's Guardian) it is simply {{WP:TOOSOON]] to know whether this will be anything more than a footnote in history. And re-read WP:TOSOONTheLongTone (talk) 12:39, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for demonstrating how it passes GNG. Better get that sou'wester on :D   ——  SerialNumber  54129  12:48, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

{{clear}}
 * Snow keep This clearly passes the GNG. There is a lot of of in-depth coverage of this group, and there will continue to be even if it ceases to exist. If it ceases to grow, it still meets notability criteria. I don't see why WP:TOOSOON is being invoked given the sheer volume of independent reliable source coverage? Ralbegen (talk) 12:44, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep huge amounts of reliable sources. Even if it shut down overnight (which seems unlikely at the minute) then it would still be notable enough for an article of its own. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 12:47, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep There's more coverage than could be included. Meets GNG. There's a possible doubt over whether it will be sustained coverage, but it would be strange not to have an article on this group, even if all coverage were to stop immediatlely. (And NOTNEWS states "Editors are encouraged to [...] develop stand-alone articles on significant current events"; individual resignations probably wouldn't merit an article, but >10 MPs resigning to form/join a new group is a significant event.) EddieHugh (talk) 13:03, 28 February 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.