Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unite Against Republicanism


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:55, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Unite Against Republicanism

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable organization. The only actual mention of this organization in the references is here, and is trivial (a brief mention of what the group's bebo site said). VQuakr (talk) 04:11, 2 February 2011 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Atmoz (talk) 21:31, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. It will take more than one sentence in a local paper to establish notability. Apart from that, it's an obvious soapbox. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 17:27, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - I favor the lowest possible bar regarding articles on political parties and their youth sections. This organized political grouping constitutes a political party. I don't find the tone here to be soapboxing, nor am I put off by the localized nature of the organization. Useful information would be lost through deletion with no commensurate improvement netted by the encyclopedia project. Carrite (talk) 20:40, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem is that the information simply isn't reliable. There is nothing to back up these claims other than the group's own website. It's one thing to use a non-independent source to fill in a few gaps in uncontroversial factual information, but another thing to base an entire article on it. My view is that when the information is simply a repeat of the group's website, the information isn't that useful, but it does undermine Wikipedia's credibility as a source of impartial and reliable information. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 11:33, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Delete I don't see significant coverage of this organization in independent sources. Papaursa (talk) 00:06, 12 February 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.