Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Red Rag

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. There is a consensus to keep this article. It surely notable enough, and the sources are also reliable. (non-admin closure) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 05:32, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Red Rag

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

Ultimately a non-notable website, known for just one event. St Anselm (talk) 07:47, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But this essentially is the event, absent a separate article for "Smeargate." --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 23:54, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that it is notable for just one event but it was a significant event in recent British political history leading to the resignation of leading advisors to the Prime Minister. The creation of this site by those at the heart of Gordon Brown's administration gave an insight into the extent to which the Labour Party planned to smear their opposition for political advantage. User:PeterT111 (talk) 17:48, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - There is substantial reliable source coverage demonstrating the impact of the Red Rag on British politics. I have gone ahead and added several sources, and there are many more. Some of the sources are right around the time of the e-mail release, but some of the sources are later on as well, demonstrating that the impact of the potential launch of the website was notable in an ongoing manner. This pretty clearly passes WP:GNG. In terms of the claim of notability for only one event, if we take a look at the intent of that norm, it is to avoid non-notable events which do not have impact on other things. This is clearly not the case here, where the Red Rag had a lasting WP:EFFECT. This web site had widespread impact and was very widely covered in diverse sources. It was also covered WP:INDEPTH with deep analysis of the impact on the political landscape in multiple highly reliable sources. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 03:46, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge The controversies that it has covered could mention the site. Does not deserve its own article. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 17:47, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge where? Damian McBride? If so, then wouldn't it be more appropriate to merge Damian McBride here, as he does not seem otherwise notable?
This AfD was never transcluded. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 20:23, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Lots of reliable coverage cited in the article itself; tremendous, by AfD standards. If there were a separate article for "Smeargate", then sure, it should be merged with that. But there is not; "smeargate" redirects to one of the actors in this event. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 23:54, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Significant political event of lasting consequence. I'd consider renaming and refocusing the article on the political event rather than the site itself, but certainly not deletion. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 20:57, 9 October 2011 (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.