Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Friends of Real Lancashire

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 Keep. Deathphoenix ʕ 05:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Friends of Real Lancashire

A quixotic movement, affiliated to one which is barely notable, and a movement which scores a whopping 275 ghits, including Wikipedia mirrors. Which are near the top. This is essentially another example of the traditional counties movement pushing their POV. Just zis Guy you know? 21:08, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense. It has the support of at least 6 sitting MPS, both Labour and Conservative. It has widespread popular support and is frequently mentioned in the media. Basically you think an entry should be deleted just because you don't agree with the subject's aims. You are the one pushing a POV here. I've made sure the article is unbiased. Strong keep Lancsalot 21:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Would you be able to add references to those media stories to the article? --Rob 23:44, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I agree with the nominator that verifiability of this particular group is very poor, but can someone fill in us non-Brits about the issue at stake here? My county was part of a much larger county back in the 17th-18th century, but no one seems to care these days since the modern counties more accurately reflect modern political divisions. Or is this more like Retrocession (District of Columbia) where billions of tax dollars (pounds?) are at stake? — AKADriver ☎ 21:51, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• See Association of British Counties and the linked articles. No large sums of money are at stake because (a) it's a teapot tempest and (b) the chances of success are somewhere between zero and none at all, since no major political party has adopted this agenda. Just zis Guy you know? 23:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I see you recommended deletion of ABC as well so you clearly have an agenda here. It was decided to keep that article so why are we having the same debate again? As I pointed out FORL clearly has significant influence in Parliament, having the patronage of at least 6 MPs. How many other pressure groups have this? Chances of success are high - several traditional counties have already been restored and FORL's aims were endorsed by the local government commission in 1994 (you clearly haven't read the article). Lancsalot 09:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Yup. I have three agendas actually: WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. In order to satisfy my agendas, the subject of an article must have sufficient coverage form neutral and authoritative external sources that we can ensure it is covered neutrally. This group gets around one tenth the number of Google hits I do. Just zis Guy you know? 09:59, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete If substantial coverage of this is demonstrated (by citations) from multiple independent sources, I'll happily say keep. Without that, we're just promoting a cause for some group. I figure WP:CORP is the best guideline for this, and it fails it miserably. --Rob 23:44, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

WP:CORP does not apply since this is not a corporation. It is a pressure group. Should every pressure group be deleted from Wikipedia? Lancsalot 09:14, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Got a better guideline? I'm open to suggestions. Here's the part that is relevant "The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself.". Now substitute "company" for "pressure group", and it works great. We can't follow WP:V and WP:NPOV policies, unless this requirement is met. We shouldn't delete all pressure group articles. We should delete all ones lacking potential for verifiability and neutrality. Now, you claimed "It has widespread popular support and is frequently mentioned in the media". Care to provide those sources in the article? If they exist, that should be easy for you to do. I'm not sure why you dislike WP:CORP's application. It's actually a stunningly low threshold to meet. No need for popularity, success, influence, fame, notoriety, or anything like that. Just substantive coverage from multiple independent reliable sources. I can't see setting the inclusion requirements any lower than that. --Rob 09:43, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Just do a search on google you will see that it's been mentioned in Parliament, on the BBC, Manchester 2002, Lancashire Life, This is Lancashire etc. Also search for "Bolton Lancashire" = 500,000 hits, "Bolton Greater Manchester" = 80,000 hits. This clearly demonstrates the popular support for their aims. Lancsalot 09:54, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

This is not an article about whether Bolton is in lancashire or Greater Manchester, or the traditional counties movement in general, it's an article about a group called the Friends of Real Lancashire. Just zis Guy you know? 10:01, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep:
  • Three slots on prime-time BBC television [1], [2], [3].
  • Mentioned in Parliamentary Hansard [4].
  • Patronage from 10% of Lancashire MP's.
  • Discussed twice in Lancaster City Council meetings, includsing a motion passed endorsing and supporting their campaign [5] [6].
  • Discussed by South Lakeland council, some support from Cumbria County council's working party noted [7].
  • Mentions of FORL and support for Lancashire Day initiative on:
    • Wyre Council's website [8]
    • and more significantly on the Lancashire County council website [9]
  • Mentioned in NHS ambulance authority reforms documents [10]
  • Mentions in
    • Bolton Evening News (multiple) [11],
    • Westmorland Gazette, [12]
    • other Lancashire online news websites (multiple mentions) [13]
    • and BBC news [14]
    • (I can vouch for appearances in at least two other Lancashire media; however their websites do not keep archives; verifiability does not equate to access via Google - this is verifiable via print archives).

Multiple non-trivial published mentions? See above. Verifiability? This group certainly exist, and their views have been considered by decision-makers. Notability? They are certainly notable enough for the councils in question to consider, and this is the important measure of a pressure group's notability (but notwithstanding the media mentions above). Neutral point of view? That's a question for the article-writers; articles are not deleted because they are POV; they are discussed and re-written until they are NPOV. See any other politics/pressure group article.

Someone researching this topic or watching Lancashire media will see mention of this group, and there should be an encyclopaedic article they can turn to for reference. An article including the above citations is not worthy of deletion. Aquilina 13:05, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

First some links aren't on point (at least the first three). This article is about the specific group. Somebody needs to update the article (not this discussion page) with independent sources about "Friends of Real Lancashire", not just the issue of old counties. The problem with articles like this, is they can sit forever in a poorly sourced state, because there so obscure, nobody cares to update them. If it's not updated in the course of AFD, it probably never will be. --Rob 14:41, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: for the moment, I'll abstain. I'll wait to see if the article is updated. I suppose now, there's a chance it will become worthwhile. I don't quite understand why independent sources weren't added at the start. I'll try to check the article just before the AFD closes, and cast an appropriate vote then. --Rob 14:47, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Apologies, I should have left a further note about the first three links (those from the BBC) - if you click on the "reveal extra detail" button under the description heading on each of those pages, it gives a list of the screen caps, interviewees and content of each of the news items - that's where the explicit mentions are.

I am currently extremely busy indeed in real life, and have very little time to edit (see my user page and contributions). I am willing to incorporate this information as soon as I can, should nobody else do it first. I just wanted to show that this article has the potential to meet Wikipedia standards, and didn't want to see it deleted before I had the opportunity to make it so. Aquilina 15:02, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I've now had a go at including these references in the article. Lancsalot 13:37, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:N and WP:RS. Stifle (talk) 23:09, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Please could you clarify exactly which parts of WP:RS the BBC, Hansard and records from county councils fail to meet? Aquilina 10:50, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete nn community group.--Peta 05:44, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

The evidence above suggests the converse. Please could you clarify why you believe the group is non-notable, despite being considered in local and national government and multiple appearances in national media? Aquilina 18:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Being mentioned in Hansard just requires an MP to say the words. BBC Local TV coverage ... meh. Local newspapers... Gee, it's not like they're ever short of stories. -- GWO

The point about Hansard is that their campaign was being advocated by an MP - they weren't just being namechecked. And the nature of the group means that they will primarily be of interest to local rather than national press. This does not mean they are insignificant (Lancashire is a county of 5m people). Wikipedia has entries for various Cornish nationalist groups which are of far less significance. Lancsalot 10:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Pressure groups exist to influence councils in their decision making. There is evidence above that councils and parliament have taken this pressure group's views into account. That establishes notability; surely anybody studying the actions of these decision making bodies should be able to research here the groups explicitly mentioned? This group's actions have been covered in the most notable regional media sources, and this region is the size of a smallish country. Aquilina 11:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete just to shut this AFD up. --Agamemnon2 10:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Keeping it would do the same. Lancsalot 10:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments like that whittle away my faith that this AfD is helping us to write an encyclopaedia. Aquilina 11:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep - clearly meets the guidelines for notability and verifiability. Really wasn't expecting to vote this way, but the links are convincing. Vizjim 11:01, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per all above. And I'm from Yorkshire. Ouch, that hurt. Jcuk 11:25, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
• keep... with a lower case k' - whilst I am ideologically opposed to the group, (being a Greater Mancunian!) and would love to have this pressure group expelled from the universe (and not towards the heavens either!), I agree with Aquillina's earlier comments that it is very much a verifiable body, which is more county specific than the Association of British Counties, and . It does however need a little cleanup/revamp and is in danger of violating NPOV in the future given that the organisation (!?) does have a clear agenda. Keep with a cleanup. Jhamez84 18:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep - just because the nominator doesn't agree with the group's policy is not a valid reason for deleting the article! The same argument was used to try and delete the main Association of British Counties article, but as that clearly failed, this should fail too. There are numerous reliable and verifiable references to this group and their work. Owain (talk) 12:16, 28 May 2006 (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.