- 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 delete. – Joe ( talk) 00:04, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Conservative Voice
- Conservative Voice ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable pressure group; only RS coverage was about the event of its founding, which are only routine coverage and so do not pass the criterion of significant coverage. Ralbegen ( talk) 21:32, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
- Keep.Totally suitable and should not be deleted. It is similar to the Tory Reform Group and Conservative Friends of Israel and more as listed in List of organisations associated with the Conservative Party (UK)
Conservative cabinet minister support is enough to warrant significant coverage as required by Wikipedia (----) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thepoliticsexpert ( talk • contribs) 21:44, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
- Could you explain what you mean by "Conservative cabinet minister support is enough to warrant significant coverage"? The only relevant guidelines as far as I can tell are WP:N and WP:ORG, neither of which relate to Conservative cabinet minister support, which isn't really "coverage".— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ralbegen ( talk • contribs)
- Sure thing
Ralbegen, it means that it has governmental authority if it is an active Prganisation set up by a cabinet minister and endorsed by them (which
CV is!). Hope that helps. (
Thepoliticsexpert 11:46, 5 January 2018 (UTC))
- @
Thepoliticsexpert: I'm struggling to see how that relates to the inclusion criterion of
notability and why you think it's
significant coverage.
Ralbegen (
talk) 17:29, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you for your message @ Ralbegen:. We should keep this article because of its notability, which does not stem per se from cabinet authority but also from the fact that, as the article does say and give evidence by citations/references (#8) for, Conservative Voice has a "follower base of just under 10,000". I think this is ample (though not all) evidence why this article fulfills the notability criterion on Wikipedia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Thepoliticsexpert ( talk • contribs)
- Duplicate !vote de-bolded.
BigHaz -
Schreit mich an 22:57, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
- According to WP:ORG, the only relevant notability guideline that considers size: "The organization’s longevity, size of membership, major achievements, prominent scandals, or other factors specific to the organization should be considered to the extent that these factors have been reported by independent sources". Size is not sufficient, and the source used here is not independent. And again: support from cabinet ministers is not inherited. Ralbegen ( talk) 21:02, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
- @
Thepoliticsexpert: I'm struggling to see how that relates to the inclusion criterion of
notability and why you think it's
significant coverage.
Ralbegen (
talk) 17:29, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
- Weak delete, as the existence of the group doesn't automatically confer notability. Neither, despite a rather hopeful (if non-policy-based) claim to the contrary, does the fact that cabinet ministers support the group. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:22, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! Baby miss fortune 03:03, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
But it does mean that it has governmental authority and support if it was founded by a cabinet minister.
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! Baby miss fortune 03:03, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! Baby miss fortune 03:04, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
- Keep. The ariticle/organization has reliable sources such a The Telegraph [1] and The Independent [2]. In addition, right-wing political parties are rapidly gaining more and more power in Europe so it would be shortsighted to delete this article. Knox490 ( talk) 04:49, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
- The Telegraph and the Independent are reliable soruces, but I don't think that these articles constitute significant coverage, as rquired by WP:N and WP:ORG. From WP:ORG, these articles both seem to be largely based on press releases and so don't contribute towards notability. Beside that, routine reporting [...] like announcmenets [...] is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia per WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. Separately, notable topics have attracted attention over a sufficiently significant period of time per WP:SUSTAINED. These articles do not demonstrate sustained attention, and when I looked for more sources to do so I couldn't find anything more than passing mentions. Ralbegen ( talk) 11:38, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
Keep. Founded by David Davis and Liam Fox so it has governmental authority. Follower base is also substantial. Thepoliticsexpert ( talk) 14:03, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
- Notability is not inherited. Explicitly: An organization is not notable merely because a notable person or event was associated with it. Size is also insufficient for notability without substantial coverage per WP:CLUB. Ralbegen ( talk) 17:48, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
- Duplicate !vote struck. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:29, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Merge and Redirect to the Conservative Party (UK) - the giveaway is in the title. Obviously exists and is sourced as such but it falls under the umbrella of the main political party and isn't important enough for a stand alone article. Szzuk ( talk) 22:55, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
- But as Conservative Voice is not officially part of The Conservative Party (UK) [1] this would not b right. Their HQ is not at [CCHQ]. They are affiliated with, but not condoned by, the Conservative Party. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thepoliticsexpert ( talk • contribs) 11:01, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
- @ Carrite: The two sources in the article that could contribute towards GNG aren't sufficient, because the coverage isn't WP:SUSTAINED. They're both about the founding of the group. I think that the lack of sufficiency of the articles in the Independent and the Telegraph to meet the GNG is also highlighted by how little of the content can be drawn from them, and how much of the article has to be drawn from non-reliable, non-independent and primary sources. Ralbegen ( talk) 15:08, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 19:56, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 19:56, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
- Delete - As noted above, no WP:LASTING coverage and thus no notability. Only coverage appears to be from when it was founded in 2012; I can't find anything else on it since. Shelbystripes ( talk) 00:19, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Keep- As noted above, very notable as follower base of 100,000 Conservatives, and cabinet minister support. Notable and influential, clear references, definitely keep. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thepoliticsexpert ( talk • contribs) 19:04, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
- —duplicat !vote struck. K.e.coffman ( talk) 04:09, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
- Delete -- a nn pressure group; the follower base does not matter if the subject lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources, which is the case here. K.e.coffman ( talk) 04:09, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:44, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:44, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
- Keep Featured in multiple reliable sources, with high-profile names. It is a borderline case though as most sources seemed too be related to the launch of the group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KU2018 ( talk • contribs) 14:53, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
- Delete The sources here are laughable. A quick search finds nothing better. If this is the most that's been written about it, this does not meet the GNG. DocumentError ( talk) 01:40, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
- Delete, per User:K.e.coffman. 2.25.221.187 ( talk) 19:32, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
- Comment editors might like to see Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Thepoliticsexpert. Doug Weller talk 16:01, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
- Delete No independent coverage showing that the group has influence on political outcomes. Cheers, 1292simon ( talk) 00:01, 17 January 2018 (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.
- 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 delete. – Joe ( talk) 00:04, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Conservative Voice
- Conservative Voice ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable pressure group; only RS coverage was about the event of its founding, which are only routine coverage and so do not pass the criterion of significant coverage. Ralbegen ( talk) 21:32, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
- Keep.Totally suitable and should not be deleted. It is similar to the Tory Reform Group and Conservative Friends of Israel and more as listed in List of organisations associated with the Conservative Party (UK)
Conservative cabinet minister support is enough to warrant significant coverage as required by Wikipedia (----) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thepoliticsexpert ( talk • contribs) 21:44, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
- Could you explain what you mean by "Conservative cabinet minister support is enough to warrant significant coverage"? The only relevant guidelines as far as I can tell are WP:N and WP:ORG, neither of which relate to Conservative cabinet minister support, which isn't really "coverage".— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ralbegen ( talk • contribs)
- Sure thing
Ralbegen, it means that it has governmental authority if it is an active Prganisation set up by a cabinet minister and endorsed by them (which
CV is!). Hope that helps. (
Thepoliticsexpert 11:46, 5 January 2018 (UTC))
- @
Thepoliticsexpert: I'm struggling to see how that relates to the inclusion criterion of
notability and why you think it's
significant coverage.
Ralbegen (
talk) 17:29, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you for your message @ Ralbegen:. We should keep this article because of its notability, which does not stem per se from cabinet authority but also from the fact that, as the article does say and give evidence by citations/references (#8) for, Conservative Voice has a "follower base of just under 10,000". I think this is ample (though not all) evidence why this article fulfills the notability criterion on Wikipedia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Thepoliticsexpert ( talk • contribs)
- Duplicate !vote de-bolded.
BigHaz -
Schreit mich an 22:57, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
- According to WP:ORG, the only relevant notability guideline that considers size: "The organization’s longevity, size of membership, major achievements, prominent scandals, or other factors specific to the organization should be considered to the extent that these factors have been reported by independent sources". Size is not sufficient, and the source used here is not independent. And again: support from cabinet ministers is not inherited. Ralbegen ( talk) 21:02, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
- @
Thepoliticsexpert: I'm struggling to see how that relates to the inclusion criterion of
notability and why you think it's
significant coverage.
Ralbegen (
talk) 17:29, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
- Weak delete, as the existence of the group doesn't automatically confer notability. Neither, despite a rather hopeful (if non-policy-based) claim to the contrary, does the fact that cabinet ministers support the group. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:22, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! Baby miss fortune 03:03, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
But it does mean that it has governmental authority and support if it was founded by a cabinet minister.
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! Baby miss fortune 03:03, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! Baby miss fortune 03:04, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
- Keep. The ariticle/organization has reliable sources such a The Telegraph [1] and The Independent [2]. In addition, right-wing political parties are rapidly gaining more and more power in Europe so it would be shortsighted to delete this article. Knox490 ( talk) 04:49, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
- The Telegraph and the Independent are reliable soruces, but I don't think that these articles constitute significant coverage, as rquired by WP:N and WP:ORG. From WP:ORG, these articles both seem to be largely based on press releases and so don't contribute towards notability. Beside that, routine reporting [...] like announcmenets [...] is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia per WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. Separately, notable topics have attracted attention over a sufficiently significant period of time per WP:SUSTAINED. These articles do not demonstrate sustained attention, and when I looked for more sources to do so I couldn't find anything more than passing mentions. Ralbegen ( talk) 11:38, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
Keep. Founded by David Davis and Liam Fox so it has governmental authority. Follower base is also substantial. Thepoliticsexpert ( talk) 14:03, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
- Notability is not inherited. Explicitly: An organization is not notable merely because a notable person or event was associated with it. Size is also insufficient for notability without substantial coverage per WP:CLUB. Ralbegen ( talk) 17:48, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
- Duplicate !vote struck. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:29, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Merge and Redirect to the Conservative Party (UK) - the giveaway is in the title. Obviously exists and is sourced as such but it falls under the umbrella of the main political party and isn't important enough for a stand alone article. Szzuk ( talk) 22:55, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
- But as Conservative Voice is not officially part of The Conservative Party (UK) [1] this would not b right. Their HQ is not at [CCHQ]. They are affiliated with, but not condoned by, the Conservative Party. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thepoliticsexpert ( talk • contribs) 11:01, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
- @ Carrite: The two sources in the article that could contribute towards GNG aren't sufficient, because the coverage isn't WP:SUSTAINED. They're both about the founding of the group. I think that the lack of sufficiency of the articles in the Independent and the Telegraph to meet the GNG is also highlighted by how little of the content can be drawn from them, and how much of the article has to be drawn from non-reliable, non-independent and primary sources. Ralbegen ( talk) 15:08, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 19:56, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 19:56, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
- Delete - As noted above, no WP:LASTING coverage and thus no notability. Only coverage appears to be from when it was founded in 2012; I can't find anything else on it since. Shelbystripes ( talk) 00:19, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Keep- As noted above, very notable as follower base of 100,000 Conservatives, and cabinet minister support. Notable and influential, clear references, definitely keep. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thepoliticsexpert ( talk • contribs) 19:04, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
- —duplicat !vote struck. K.e.coffman ( talk) 04:09, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
- Delete -- a nn pressure group; the follower base does not matter if the subject lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources, which is the case here. K.e.coffman ( talk) 04:09, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:44, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:44, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
- Keep Featured in multiple reliable sources, with high-profile names. It is a borderline case though as most sources seemed too be related to the launch of the group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KU2018 ( talk • contribs) 14:53, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
- Delete The sources here are laughable. A quick search finds nothing better. If this is the most that's been written about it, this does not meet the GNG. DocumentError ( talk) 01:40, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
- Delete, per User:K.e.coffman. 2.25.221.187 ( talk) 19:32, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
- Comment editors might like to see Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Thepoliticsexpert. Doug Weller talk 16:01, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
- Delete No independent coverage showing that the group has influence on political outcomes. Cheers, 1292simon ( talk) 00:01, 17 January 2018 (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.