Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/4IM

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 of the debate was Delete Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 19:18, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 4IM

This page would appear to be vanity for an organisation - notice a large majority of edits have been made by a user who shares a username with the subject of the article. The organisation has no hits on the first few pages of google results for both internation and UK searches. Neo 01:09, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Seems like they're running a political campaign. --Aucaman 02:37, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Notable political movements are not run on Bravehost, generally. Ashibaka tock 06:33, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Okay - just as you don't like the page doesn't mean its okay to vandalise it. I've reverted your edits. --Neo 02:12, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

That actually has a lot of precedent on AfD, but I won't do it again. sry. Ashibaka tock 01:57, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete: Very odd. Independence for England? The organization, designed to be an umbrella for a bunch of groups that don't like each other, does not appear to have succeeded in its mission to a degree where it is commented upon very much. A news entry isn't terribly germane. Geogre 17:13, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I did get some hits on the first page of Google, some of them as 4-IM. Rhion 19:00, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

With respect to the following comments notice should be taken that User:Ashibaka had edited the page to add some silliness about the number four desiring independence from the real numbers. I have now reverted his edits to the page. The 'real' content is non trivial.

• Delete as non-notable. Did anyone look at the bottom of the article and see the other 4IM community where the number 4 was petitioning to leave the set of real numbers as it was held prisoner by numbers 3 and 5? This smells more of a hoax. Ifnord 22:08, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

  Just to be clear, I found the article non-notable even without the vandalism. My vote stands. Ifnord 17:37, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Nonsense. As above, the number bit proves that the page is nonserious. It seems, honestly, more appropriate for uncyclopedia. The other part has no meaningful google results either. Cool3 22:23, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as above --Mecanismo 23:00, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep 4IM 20:40, 8 December 2005 (UTC) I don't understand what everyone is talking about and why there seems to be a campaign to delete both of 4IMs pages on Wikipedia? I obviously got the wrong idea about Wikipdeia being a 'on-line encyclopedia'. I do not understand why these pages are not allowed? If you are going to have pages about Pokemon cards then surely an organisation which is in co-operation with the Free Scotland Party, Liberal councillor in Humber and also affiliated to many other organisations then I would say it is 'notable' (whatever that constitutes)? Could someone please help me with making the pages 'relevant' to Wikipedia?? And what is all the talk of number independence? The organisation supports independence of 4 UK countries, which are Scotland, England, Northern Ireland and Wales, hence 4?
• Keep, notable enough. ナイトスタリオン ✉ 08:55, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. In the Welsh Nationalism article (4IM was added in an edit in November 2005) they claim it was started in 2000. This webpage [1] claims a 2002 start and states it is "open" to alliances with similar minded parties. This website [2] claims a start in the 1990's. This "party" has no verifiable alliances with any major party advocating the devolution of the UK and one of thier websites states that "There is a plan that we may become an politcal party in England (4IP) in time for a 2009/10 election.". Movementarian 09:12, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. This really isn't a notable movement. The page is little more than vanity at the moment. Peeper 11:52, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep there are tons of minor political parties and movements with articles on Wikipedia. Why the fuss about this one?--Mais oui! 15:05, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  1. It was created by a person from the organisation itself,
  2. It has no webpage results in the first pages of Google when searching for '4IM',
  3. No results for the term at all when searching Google and BBC News websites,
  4. The organisation would appear to have actualy done next to noting notable enough to require a page,
  5. Only people random searching or knowing what they were looking for would reach the page.
  6. No sources beyond their own webpage
     1. Even that page has no reference to media coverage which one would expect a notable political movement to have.
  7. How do we know this organisation exists outside of their website and Wikipedia article at all? --Neo 16:16, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep -- valid political movement (and one which answers the "East Lothian Question") with a EU perspective, since all 4 countries will eventually become European Regions, akin to Andorra or the Dutch-Belgian enclaves.--SockpuppetSamuelson 15:13, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

The movement is valid, but have you heard of the organisation outside of the context of this article? I appreciate and support their motives, but this article seems to just be an attempt to gain support for the organisation, which seems to be quite small. Thats not what Wikipedia is for. --Neo 16:16, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per Movementarian's research. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:49, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete NN. David | Talk 18:54, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. To be notable a political party needs to demonstrate that someone takes them seriously other than themselves. If they were a band, they would fail WP:MUSIC with flying black and yellow colours. --Last Malthusian 00:47, 10 December 2005 (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.