Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swinton circle

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 01:35, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Swinton circle

Swinton circle (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

This is a minor (500 member) British political pressure group of whom I (a Brit and regular reader of British political journalism) have never heard. There are around 150 unique ghits for "swinton circle" of which many are unrelated [1]. The article is essentially unsourced, only one quote from the New Statesman (a magazine pretty much guaranteed to hate this subject on ideological grounds alone) is independent of the group. The history of the article strongly suggests a political axe being ground. Guy (Help!) 17:38, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

  • 571 ghits, of which 150 are unique, yes. And not all are related, of course. None of those articles is actually primarily about the subject, though. Guy (Help!) 18:52, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - This far-right group is notable, having been discussed in numerous national periodicals. It is particularly notable because, unlike other far-right groups such as The Monday Club, it remains close to, and approved by, the Conservative Party and has been visited and addressed by leading members of that party, including David Davis and Ann Widdecombe. (talk) 19:54, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Please see WP:BLP and be moderate when referring to living individuals. Thanks. Guy (Help!) 20:40, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
  • As far as I can see the only potentially controversial statement regarding a living individual concerns the fact that the LSC Chair is a former member of the National Front but he has admitted this himself. However, I'm quite happy to balance this by adding the fact that he says he has more recently called for the BNP to be banned. Of course it's important to get facts right about the dead also. The late Mr Binding was certainly a BNP activist as shown in photos available on-line. The Ku Klux Klan link was reported in a range of national journals (as well as Searchlight) during Mr Binding's lifetime. Mr Binding did not deny or refuse to answer the allegation but gave detailed reasons why he had resigned from the KKK so it seems pretty conclusive to me. Mark Hasker (talk) 07:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, passes the heard-of-it test (considering I'm American) and probably had its heyday prior to the internet, of which there are very few British periodicals searchable online. The article probably goes into much more detail than is warranted by sources and could use a good trim. --Dhartung | Talk 20:04, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete this, it's not notable and as JzG pointed out, the New Stateman is hardly an appropriate source/reference/whatever. John Reaves 20:51, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I do not understand your objection to the New Statesman, which is a heavyweight centre-left journal of considerable repute. All journals are to some extent biased, but what matters is whether or not they are telling the truth. the late Mr Binding is (obviously) not a living individual but he was an important link between the Conservative Party and the BNP as pictured here Binding(search under 'Binding') Nevertheless, to satisfy your objection I will replace the New Statesman quote with a quotation from The Observer a highly respected and old-established London Sunday with moderate centrist political leanings. Mark Hasker (talk) 08:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Seriously John, what is wrong with the New Statesman? JASpencer (talk) 07:30, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - I hadn't previously heard of this group either but there is enough information here and via Google to prove that we need to be kept abreast of this organisation. Possibly some more cleaning up may be desirable but if we deleted all entries of which people had never heard there wouldn't be much left on Wikipedia.99.224.28.156 (talk) 12:44, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - But only if someone is willing to do serious work on the page so that the reader will understand WHY they are notable after reading the entry. The goal would be that someone who has never heard of the group, will understand them and why they are notable after reading the article. If someone can do that, then I recommend keep.Helixweb (talk) 06:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - The article is now cleaned up and sourced so as to be almost unrecognisable from the mess it was previously. I agree with Helixweb that the many people who have never heard of this group should be made to understand that this group is plainly now the leading group on the Tory right, having taken over from the better-known but apparently moribund Monday Club. 83.138.172.79 (talk) 09:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, looks a lot better now, good job on those who contributed.Helixweb (talk) 23:23, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Yet another article nominated for deletion simply because the nominator hasn't heard of the subject. The whole point of an encyclopedia is that you can find things out that you didn't know before. And since when has the New Statesman not been a reliable source? This group has also had significant coverage in the Independent on Sunday [2] , the Observer [3] and an encyclopedia [4]. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  • speedy Keep Adequately sourced now, no plausible objection to the article has been presented. DGG (talk) 08:29, 25 March 2008 (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.