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. Majorly (o rly?) 13:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dorset Conservative Future[edit]

Dorset Conservative Future (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Non-notable local political youth organisation, with no history and no national profile. See WP:ORG. Badgerpatrol 12:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nominator — Preceding unsigned comment added by El Cid (talk • contribs)

...so none of your members are actually serving as elected representatives, and the highest any of your former members has ever reached is being a candidate for an election that won't happen for another 3 years. If your organisation has ever been profiled in the national media, or if you have evidence that it has a high national profile, by all means provide links here. Otherwise, see WP:ORG. Badgerpatrol 00:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In fact one of our affiliated members, Tobias Ellwood, is the Member of Parliament for Bournemouth East. Its national profile can be found on the Conservative Party website and several articles will be appearing in Dorset-wide press (such as The Daily Echo) during the April run-up to the local elections. As a final point, considering David Cameron's drive to promote youth interest in politics, I think this article is very relevant as evidence that shows we are embracing his campaign. In fact, Nick King's parliamentary campaign office is establishing an Executive position to deal with Dorset CF and youth-based constituency matters. Richardbooth 00:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • WIkipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a forum for demonstrating that the modern Conservatives (or Labour, or Liberals....) are "down with de kidz". The fact that this article highlights your embrace of David Cameron's ideas and policies is utterly, utterly 1000% irrelevent, I'm afraid. This is not a political soapbox, or an indiscriminate collection of information. Sorry, but that's the way it is. The right thing to do is to restrict that sort of material to party or personal blogs and websites- it has no place in an encyclopaedia. Badgerpatrol 01:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is the user's first and so-far only edit to Wikipedia. Badgerpatrol 00:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • (User has 8 Wikipedia contributions in total, including 2 to his own article (Michael Griffiths- page creation and one other edit) and 5 to this AfD discussion.) Badgerpatrol 09:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I certainly have no political agenda for my own part, and I think that some of the above !voters are !British even, so I suspect that the only issue at hand here is whether this page (and by extension the related vanity/self promotion pages that I came across today and put up for deletion) is, or is!, in line with policy, particularly that on notability. In my view, they blatantly are not. So far, no-one here (with the exception of one dubious possible meat puppet) has !voted to keep the article that is not directly mentioned in it as an active member of DCF. That seems to say it all really. If you feel the BNP article (which I am not aware of) does not confirm to policy then feel free to nominate it so that the issue can be discussed. Badgerpatrol 00:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • With respect, you clearly have no idea how AfD works. I am not an admin and I have no power to delete the article; after the discussion has run its course, an admin will step in and make a decision as to whether the page's inclusion in the encyclopaedia is in accordance with policy, as demonstrated by the arguments and evidence in this discussion. It is certainly not logical that every local offshoot of a national organisation is automatically notable- because Tesco or Wal-Mart are notable organisations, does that mean that every one of their local stores should have its own article automatically? Of course not. Again, the only issue here is whether or not this article conforms to policy. It does not, in my opinion, and neither does it seemingly in the opinion of the other disinterested correspondents so far. Badgerpatrol 00:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also take exception to your personal attack btw, for the record. I have no vendetta against any organisation- in fact, I rarely edit political articles. Please provide some evidence that I have any kind of vendetta against "certain users and organisations", as I feel that's a pretty serious accusation. I first became aware of the existence of these (DCF) articles and users less than 24 hours ago...the simple fact is, that the subjects of this and the other related articles are not at all notable, per WP:N, WP:ORG and WP:BIO. Badgerpatrol 12:45, 16 February 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.
More