Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Republic (United Kingdom)

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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-05 09:14Z

[edit] Republic (United Kingdom)

Republic (United Kingdom) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Obscure, non-notable substub on tiny UK pressure group that seems to exist largely only as a website. Stringops 20:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. It does exist, and if you look at the supporters list on the website, they have some prominent supporters. I found an external source in the "Encyclopedia of British and Irish Political Organizations", at item 188 on page 76. And here is a press story about the group's campaigning. It needs expansion, that's for sure. Sam Blacketer 22:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment - one online newspaper mention doesn't make the group notable. Anyone can ring up a newspaper and make a claim hoping to get a mention. Apart from allegedly trying to get an advert printed, 'republic' seems to have little recognition outside of its own website. Searching google news for Republic anti-monarchy produces nothing relevant. Stringops 22:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment The Guardian which ran the story, along with The Daily Telegraph and Daily Mail who refused the ads, are slightly more than 'online newspapers'. Nuttah68 14:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I only put one mention there. The problem is that the terms which might be searched for throw up a lot of irrelevant hits. Google news only searches the last few weeks. I can do a more lengthy search if you want. The group was founded in 1983 by Stephen Haseler. Sam Blacketer 22:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I understand your point about the difficulty in accurately searching for something called 'republic', however, even if it gets an occasional media mention, I'm not convinced that it's well-known enough to satisfy notability. Also, having notable supporters doesn't necessarily make a group notable itself. If prominent people support it, there more of a case for mentioning that in their own articles. So far as pressure groups go, this one seems to me to be a pretty insignificant one from the evidence I've found. Stringops 22:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough - I'll do a longer search and place my results on this article's talk page. Now done. Sam Blacketer 22:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, non-notable, may have some cursory supporters, but none take an active interest, apparently. It doesn't seem to contribute anything society other than having a website, which any organisation can have. It doesn't hold events &c.--Couter-revolutionary 22:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 23:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete after reading Couter-revolutionary views Brian | (Talk) 03:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep in line with The Guardian coverage plus further coverage found just by searching on "Republic - The Campaign for an Elected Head of State" at [1] and [2] (Peter Tatchell's site), . Also used to comment and linked from the BBC at [3], comments for ABC at [4], The Scotsman at [5]. Futher coverage is out there as the group is covered under the name and slogan. Nuttah68 14:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, as per Nuttah68's comments and the details on the discussion page.--Vintagekits 20:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete- non notable Astrotrain 21:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Per talk page references. One Night In Hackney_IRA 21:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment, references do not equate with notability.--Couter-revolutionary 21:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I respectfully suggest you familiarise yourself with the notability guidelines then. One Night In Hackney_IRA 21:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment, I am and have seen many referenced organisations deleted. I could easily public lots of websites referencing a fictional society, would that make it notable? So far as I can tell this does not exist outside the internet.--Couter-revolutionary 21:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment that would suggest you have not read the references, seeing as they contain reports from reliable sources of meetings, demonstrations, PQs and so on. Nuttah68 21:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment, it is interesting to note your attitude and interpretation of wiki policy switches depending on the issue. This AfD is a result of the previous AfD and the nominator appears to be a sockpuppet of one of those disgruntled by the imminent deletion.--Vintagekits 21:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Where's your proof? Of course I've learnt my lesson from the previous deletions.--Couter-revolutionary 21:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• keep on the basis of the actual article. Who this group's supporters may be, how many they are, how likely its political goals seem, all of this is not relevant. If it is commented on by major national news sources it is N. WP is not a judge of political merit. DGG 00:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep Here are a list of its supporters http://www.republic.org.uk/supporters/index.php Including renowned human rights campaigner peter tatchellRepublicUK 20:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment here are some references of its notability:

http://www.labourspace.com/campaign.php?whichcampaign=71

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmpubadm/212/212we08.htm

http://www.petertatchell.net/politics/republic.htm.RepublicUK 20:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment The first is a mention on a campaigns website, not a directory of notability. Does wikipedia have an article on Save Gloucester Mail Centre (Communication Workers Union - Gloucestershire Amal. Branch)? Should it?

The second concerns written evidence to a parliamentary committee. HMSO is obliged to publish all the written evidence it receives. If I were to submit evidence to such a committee myself, I would end up being quoted by the same website; that wouldn't make me notable enough for a wikipedia article! Indeed, if you look, you will find that the vast majority of the 96-odd published submissions are from non-notable individuals and organisations who quite rightly aren't mentioned on wikipedia.

The third link is Peter Tatchell voicing his opinion on his own website. Just because Tatchell is notable doesn't make any organisation he links to on his website notable! As I've said before, in the case of Tatchell, it makes far more sense to mention his support of this organisation in his own article rather than maintain a tiny stub in its own namespace. Stringops 02:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

This nomination was only made because I nominated an unoitable monarchist organisation.RepublicUK 20:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

No, it wasn't. I nominated it because I happened to stumble upon the article whilst browsing and didn't think it deserved to be on wikipedia. I haven't contributed to wikipedia for several months previous to this and I have no involvement in any other arguments you might have had during this time. Stringops 02:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Please assume good faith of the user who nominated this article for deletion.--Couter-revolutionary 20:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• Moderate Keep - Extra sources seem to provide enough notability. - ElbridgeGerry t c block 22:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - I would like to point out that User:RepublicUK is a member (and representative) of this organisation and has admitted this on his user=page. --Counter-revolutionary 09:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per the additional sources of notability, which should be added to the article. —Nightstallion (?) 16:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

KeepThis is a topic of very significant consequence. People are advocating the replacement of the British monarchy with a republic, talk that would have gotten them spedily into prison in the nineteenth century and much of the twentieth century. The issue of republice versus monarchy is one that stocked the conservative ancien regime reaction against liberalism in Britain and on the European continent throughout the nineteenth century.

It is rather remarkable that people are hurling charges such as sock puppet. This organization is a bona fide organization with dozens of supporters among political and cultural figures in British society. The BBC had given reference to it in a series of articles in 2003. Dogru144 17:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Wkipedia's job is not to give forum to a voice for different/extremist views. If it's not notable it's not notable! --Counter-revolutionary 18:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

However, it helps if you show why, rather than just assert it vigorously. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 06:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep based on prominent supporters, press coverage. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 06:45, 5 March 2007 (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.