Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/We Demand a Referendum

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 no consensus. It looks like there is consensus not to delete, but no consensus as to whether the article should be kept or merged. I suggest opening a merge discussion on the talk page. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:51, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We Demand a Referendum

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails notability and political policies. Fails GNG. Fails our policies and consensus on notable lobby/pressure groups. Lobby group without notability beyond the Internet. Has no constant, consistent non-Internet coverage. Article suffers from bias. Not a political group in any definition of the term in the UK, not to mention any of the constituent parts. doktorb _words^deeds 20:59, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: Accusations levelled at the article are baseless.

Proponent claims WDAR has no notability beyond the Internet. Yet the Sun and Express articles, for example, have been published both online and in their print versions. It has also been widely discussed on radio programmes, of which the source quoted in the article itself is just one example. Other high-profile non-Internet coverage includes an interview of a party candidate on the BBC's Daily Politics show alongside UKIP deputy leader Paul Nuttall.

That video link is by the user "nikkisinclairemp", and therefore a primary source - no good for helping notability. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:38, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The original work is by the BBC, which is what should count for the purposes of judging notability. Sinclaire just uploaded the video, nothing else. She clearly didn't stage the interview on a fake BBC set. --Leptictidium (mt) 12:42, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proponent claims the article suffers from bias. Yet the main contributor to the article (me) is staunchly pro-EU, so accusing me of trying to embellish information on WDAR is ridiculous.

Proponent claims this is not a political group in any definition of the term in the UK. Yet the party has been registered with the Electoral Commission since June this year; if being registered with the EC as a political party is not a definition of "political group", then what is?--Leptictidium (mt) 08:32, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

merge to Nikki Sinclaire, until there's clear evidence this is a real political party that stands in elections, rather than one person's crusade that could peter out before the euro elections. There are some sources, but mostly about Sinclaire[1][2][3] - it's mostly local press from around Sinclaire's constituency. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:50, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - sources 1, 3, 5 and 6 are all primary sources, not suitable for testing notability. 3 is a press release, and hence not independent. That leaves an article each from The Sun and the Daily Express, just giving us significant coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources (assuming you believe 2 is "multiple"). And I didn't really want a photo of Katie Hopkins thrown in my face while eating my lunch. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:56, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: source 1 has been replaced with a non-primary source, making it at least three independent, reliable sources. Leptictidium (mt) 12:38, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I found out about this party from a BBC show "Daily Politics" which did not feature Nikki Sinclair, but another woman Katie Hopkins (sp?). I vote to keep, since this is now a party with notoriety thanks to the BBC and some newspapers as others have mentioned. I have no political connect to this or any British party. 78.52.102.235 (talk) 00:52, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Nikki Sinclaire per Colapeninsula. MilborneOne (talk) 19:05, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to founder, as per above. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:38, 29 September 2012 (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.