Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Labour for Independence

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 no consensus. discussion about merger is free to continue on talk page. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:07, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Labour for Independence

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article lacks notability, it is about a group set up by 1 party member with no official status at all, it has almost no support and no sizable media coverage (other groups have got more media attention but do not have an article). Only the primary campaign groups in the referendum debate Yes Scotland and Better Together (campaign) should have articles of their own. This is little more than a website/blog BritishWatcher (talk) 18:30, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Completely disagree. I started this article because the development may prove to be highly significant and since the story was reported in two scottish quality newspapers, some readers may turn to wikipedia for more information. The group may have been started by a single individual but so was wikipedia so that is not a reason to delete the article! We don't know how many members it has at present or what support it may pick up. I assume the complaint from Britishwatcher (whose User Page states boldly, "Long Live the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland", under a large Union Flag) is not related to the fact that this organisation seeks to end the 'Union' that he holds dear. Let me reassure him that I would also start an article SNP members for the Union should one be formed! Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 19:04, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Am i suggesting that Yes Scotland, Scottish National Party, Scottish independence referendum, 2014 be deleted? no, because clearly all 3 are notable. I would not support the creation of a Conservative Friends of the Union article, despite that being an official campaign nor would i back an SNP for the Union page. This is not a notable group. It only needs an article if it becomes a major part of the campaign, which at present it certainly has not. Only the primary pro uk/separatist campaigns should have an article, those articles are extremely light in terms of content anyway, the idea a dozen small groups that have also been created should be added makes no sense. I would support a page with a full list of campaign groups on both sides, but not a single article for each. One example would be One Dynamic Nation [1], a pro UK organisation formed months ago that did get some media coverage when it launched, yet no article exists for it, nor should there be unless it plays a significant role. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:13, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - the article cites two indepth news articles about the subject in two different news sources, therefore it meets the bare minimum criteria of WP:GNG. There's not much to the movement apart from a web presence, but it's not surprising the press are interested in dissent within a major political party on a very topical issue. Sionk (talk) 20:32, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anti independence campaign launched, people power to fight for the Union. Two articles about a group called One Dynamic Nation, but it was never deemed notable enough for an article. Conservative Friends of the Union is a redirect to the main Scottish conservative party article, yet there are articles about it. BBC, Herald , Scotsman to name a few. I do not believe 2 mentions in the media makes a campaign or group notable enough for an article. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:06, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Who says One Dynamic Nation and Conservative Friends of the Union aren't notable? That sounds like a WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST argument ;) Sionk (talk) 21:16, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Qualified Keep - Revisit in 6 months with a view to deletion if no further developments. 195.27.17.3 (talk) 01:07, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – This topic meets WP:GNG per: [2], [3]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:07, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So any group mentioned in two news articles is worthy of an article. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:11, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. They need to be the subject/talked about substantially in multiple reliable news sources i.e. more than one. Which is true in this instance. Sionk (talk) 09:56, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Scottish independence referendum, 2014#Campaign organisations or to Yes Scotland (even though they don't appear to be a part of Yes Scotland, it's perhaps appropriate to list similar organisations there). No indication that this organisation is of lasting significance; it's currently only known for one event, i.e. being founded. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:54, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge -- The British Labour party is taking a Unionist stance. This is thus a splintter group opposing party policy. I am not going to suggest which of Colapeninsula's targets is the better, but it should be one of them. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:21, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.