Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The People's Brexit Campaign


 * 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. Despite the defective nomination and WP:SPA / WP:SOCK involvement, there's clear consensus to delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:09, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

The People's Brexit Campaign

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

 MrZINE 18:40, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Question for nominator What is the deletion rationale for this article, which was created an hour and a half ago? Bakazaka (talk) 19:16, 28 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Answer To this article does not have citation and please read WP:RS & WP:GNG  MrZINE 19:19, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Next time you nominate, please follow all of the applicable instructions at WP:AFDHOWTO, including the one that says to replace "Why the page should be deleted with the reasons the page should be deleted". If you don't provide a rationale in your AfD nominations, they can be closed as "speedy keep" on procedural grounds (see WP:SKCRIT). Also note that "Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article" (see WP:NPOSSIBLE), so lack of citations is not, by itself, a sufficient argument for deleting an article. Bakazaka (talk) 19:26, 28 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete While I agree with Bakazaka that this nomination was perhaps malformed, the article appears to be a publication of the organization's manifesto (violating WP:NPOV and WP:NOT) rather than a description of the organization itself. While a Google search for "The People's Brexit" gets a fair number of hits, it is unclear that any of them refer to this (or any) specific organization (violating WP:ORG). It should be noted that I rejected a draft on this topic. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 19:32, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:05, 28 February 2019 (UTC)


 * KEEP I rewrote this article after the original article was prevented from being edited further after I edited it based on the suggestions to make it more neutral. I felt guilty as the original author was then prevented from editing it any more if they wished to because of me and the only way I could think of to make amends was to write a new article. It took me a long time and I thought it was very neutral and in comparison with a lot of articles on Wikipedia it is extremely neutral and it was edited back to the bone but some content has to remain or else there would be nothing left and it would be criticised for not being informative enough. It is not, as claimed, the 'manifesto' as I do not know what that is! Wikipedia states that the rules are not 'set in stone and also that 'there are no rules' and Wikipedia is supposed to be for the benefit and enjoyment of all so this attempted censorship of what I think is a good well written article is at odds with this. Further, that as a National Campaign with a growing following and a website, www.thepeoplesbrexit.org, The People's Brexit is entitled to a Wikipedia page under the Wikipedia guidelines. Also, I feel that this article is being judged as a finished product when under Wikipedia it is supposed to be like any one of the other thousands of articles and never finished, always developing. It has also been commented that there is not much history about the Campaign but it has only been going for two months and there is not much history, that will also come with time as the page is developed. Also I did not deliberately by pass the draft process when I wrote the article as was claimed, for some reason I was not given that option. I must say that this type of censorship and harsh judgement not only upsets me but it makes me very reluctant to ever try and benefit Wikipedia by writing any more articles when people wish to delete your hard work instead of trying to improve it. Also it seems that some people would rather just criticise the work of others rather than producing their own and seem to get enjoyment from destroying it. The only thing they really achieve by this is destroying the whole heart and soul of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diggerty (talk • contribs) 00:33, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Appears to be a front organization of the Communist Party of Britain, but there aren't even sufficient sources to support a brief mention in that article, let alone enough to support a standalone article. Fails WP:ORG.--Pontificalibus 06:55, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Pontificalibus  07:01, 1 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep I am nothing to do with the Communist Party of Britain and I resent this allegation of my article being written under these circumstances! It is extremely unfair to base a delete vote on something that is not true! If you care to actually read the article you will see that under the See Also section it refers to 'Conservatives For Britain' which completely refutes your allegations.


 * Diggerty (talk) 12:03, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * One !vote per person please. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:13, 1 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment No one accused you of being a member of the Communist Party; only that "The People's Brexit" is a front for the Communist Party. You have explicitly stated that you "found this very interesting and informative article in a draft format and edited it as recommended by a previous reader." Your reaction here indicates that, rather than simply "coming across" this article, you may, in fact, be involved with this organization. If you are, that would be a conflict of interest that I think you should disclose as part of this discussion.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:13, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

To clear up the issues raised, firstly, it is obvious from both the original article and looking at the website there is no connection at all between The People's Brexit and the British Communist Party as it is clearly a politically neutral, cross-party, Campaign Group. Secondly, I was actually referring to the previous reader of the original article who recommended the edits that I did to make it more Wikipedia compliant. Maybe I should have correctly called them 'the Wikipedia editor' instead of 'reader' to avoid this type of confusion and I would have done if I had thought you would use this innocent comment as ammunition against me! Equally though you should not jump to the wrong conclusion and be so judgemental and bullying! I am not on trial here and you are not the Wikipolice! As I said, I just came across the article and found it interesting and informative and that is all there is to it and I resent yet more spurious allegations against me personally and consider it a personal attack, which as you know Wikipedia takes as a very serious matter.

Diggerty (talk) 14:47, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * My comment was not related to your use of the term "reader" vs "editor". My comment was in regard to your taking personal umbrage at the accusation that this organization might be related to the Communist Party of Britain. Since you spoke of the draft as something that you just happened upon (as opposed to something that you are personally involved with), I thought your reaction was odd, and it made me suspect that you may, in fact, be involved with the organization, which, if true, you should disclose based on Wikipedia's conflict of interest rules. If you are not associated with the organization, and merely took umbrage because you thought the accusation of Communist Party affiliation was aimed at you, rather than at the organization, than everything is fine, and we can just move along. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:05, 1 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete as failing WP:ORG, WP:GNG, and also WP:CSD and WP:CSD if it wasn't already at AfD. I would have said to redirect to Communist Party of Britain but it turns out there are two of them &mdash; the other is Communist Party of Britain (Marxist–Leninist) &mdash; so I have no idea which to redirect to.  The subject fails WP:ORG/WP:GNG: This organization is not the subject of substantial coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject.  In fact the only mention I could find is in the article "Morning Star still in knots over Brexit" from 2019-02-20 on a London communist website (Alliance for Workers' Liberty), a source of unknown reliability, which alleges that there were letters written by "Alex Gordon of the People’s Brexit Campaign backed by the Communist Party of Britain".  (If it turns out the source is false, then that still leaves the organization with zero independent sources.)  The subject meets WP:CSD and WP:CSD also (though, to be fair, speedy deletion usually isn't appropriate once Articles for Discussion is underway): The article doesn't even make a credible claim of significance.  Being one of the multitudes of me-also "campaigns" that are on one side of Brexit or the other is not separately significant.  It just gives 2 sentences about the organization, then launches into a screed of talking points about Brexit itself.  (By the way, this "campaign" address is just a private mailbox service in London.)  The arguments against deletion, made by the article creator, are the usual "will be notable someday" (not valid criteria) and "censorship"/"I discovered IAR and suddenly realized that my own emissions are so very important that no rules can ever apply" arguments (see WP:NOTWEBHOST, WP:NOTADVERTISING). --Closeapple (talk) 19:57, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Although a " People's Brexit Campaign" comes up in a google search on a number of Communist Party-affiliated websites, I am getting ZERO hits in a gNews search.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:09, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete As stated above this does not appear to be a notable organisation. On top of this, the article reads more like an attempted description of the UK joining the EEC in the 1970s (ans one which gives a rather one-sided description of the event omitting evidence which would not suit the line it is taking) rather than describing the organisations support, campaigns, coverage etc. Dunarc (talk) 20:08, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Cannot find any suitable sources. Leave.EU it is not. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  11:23, 8 March 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.