Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Movement Against the Monarchy
- 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. Majorly (hot!) 19:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Movement_Against_the_Monarchy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View log)
DELETE - seems un-notable, although it maintains a website this is NO evidence of notability in itself. Anyone can establish a "movement" and start a website. Non notable and with no need to be here. --Counter-revolutionary 12:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- P.S. I've just discovered it doesn't even exist any longer! Even if it was notable in the past it certainly isn't now!--Counter-revolutionary 12:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 09:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Plenty of sources available with coverage of their protests, although somebody needs to add some of them to the article. I'll do so later in the day if it hasn't yet been done. JavaTenor 17:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Further comment: "Even if it was notable in the past it certainly isn't now!" isn't a valid assessment; see WP:NOTE#Notability_is_generally_permanent. JavaTenor 22:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment maybe someone needs to add the references to the article because at the moment it fails WP:V.--Vintagekits 18:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Article needs work but sources as demonstrated are plenty so it shouldn't be all too hard. Lord Metroid 22:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Plenty of media coverage, obviously plenty of people want to write about a group campaigning for the monarchy to be abolished and/or executed. One Night In Hackney303 19:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- ...and you talk of "in step" --Counter-revolutionary 19:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "In step" - ONiH is stating that it should be kept and I am saying that in its current state should be deleted! Baffled!--Vintagekits 19:27, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You're correct. Apologies. I presumed....--Counter-revolutionary 20:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- ...and you talk of "in step" --Counter-revolutionary 19:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.