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. I don't find even a rough consensus for keeping, or deleting the article. I have assigned little weight to the IP comment regarding sourcing, since no actual examples were provided, however, the follow on arguments of the same "no applicable citation" that were from account holders got equal weight. If I gave comment equal weight, the result would be the same here, still no consensus for deletion. My best recommendation here would be to wait awhile before relisting this debate, and in the mean time, discuss notability and sourcing issue on the talk page. I see some argument for a possible merge, that can also be discussed on talk. There is no consensus to merge here either. I'm not an administrator, I was one in the past however. NonvocalScream (talk) 16:45, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Davis for Freedom campaign[edit]

David Davis for Freedom campaign (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

I'm not sure this subject is notable enough to have a page in its own right and it's in danger of being one-sided. Does anyone think six months after the by-election this article will still be not worthy? I subject merging to Haltemprice and Howden by-election, 2008. Philip Stevens (talk) 21:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep The article is an appropriate fork of content that would otherwise unbalance David Davis (British politician), Haltemprice and Howden by-election, 2008, plus a few other related pages. Being 'in danger' of bias, or not being notable in the future, are invalid reasons for deletion. MickMacNee (talk) 00:38, 21 June 2008 (UTC) Re-voted on relisting. MickMacNee (talk) 23:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: User's 9th edit (4 of them about this page) MickMacNee (talk) 13:20, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: User's 2nd edit MickMacNee (talk) 16:12, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: User's 5th edit (3 of them about this topic) MickMacNee (talk) 16:12, 11 July 2008 (UTC) [reply]
'One of the biggest political events the country has seen for years'? I have to disagree with that assessment. In the past year alone, political events that have received more attention than David Davis' campaign include the nationalisation of Northern Rock, the London mayoral election, 2008 and the previous by-election in Crewe and Nantwich. 'It will probably be the biggest until the next election' is an argument based on attempting to predict the future, which Wikipedia doesn't do, and 'I will remember this for years to come' is not sufficient grounds for inclusion. While I appreciate how much many people care about this subject, I just don't think it has proven to have long-term notability. Terraxos (talk) 00:37, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'One of the biggest political events the country has seen for years' because it rebels in the face of the governmet. There has been much attention given to the lack of support the government has these days, and this is the main demonstration of that, if you like. 'I will remember this for years to come' is a direct response to people suggesting we will have forgotten about it in six months. That isn't a valid reason to delete, but \i don't see you picking them out for it, only taking my response to them out of context. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 14:07, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You have misunderstood the notability guideline. If something was notable at a specific point in time (and that cannot even be argued otherwise given the amount of sources), then it remains notable for all time. We do not subsequently merge/delete articles purely because time has passed and the event is percieved to have faded from the spotlight. As an aside, I don't realy know what you define 'little coverage', as the result was on every single mainstream TV and radio news bulletin I saw yesterday. A merge with the by-election would be a violation of giving undue weight and given the size of this article, would be counter to the manual of style. But the case for a merge has already died out as a no consensus, something which seems to have been overlooked in the reopening of this Afd. Nothing has changed since that very recent debate, so it realy is a moot point. MickMacNee (talk) 16:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A few responses: firstly, I'm not convinced that the merge proposal really received enough attention to represent a fair judgement on the article, though that is obviously open to debate. In any case, consensus can change and a 'delete' or 'merge' conclusion to this discussion would supersede the earlier 'no consensus' conclusion in the merge discussion.
Secondly, on the 'notability is not temporary' issue - I take that differently to you do. As I understand it, it means that 'notability' means lasting importance, not brief interest, and an event that only receives attention from the media for a brief period before they move in is not in fact 'notable'. (From Wikipedia:Notability: "it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute evidence of sufficient notability.") In this case, this article would fail.
Finally, while I take back what I said above about this receiving little coverage, I don't think that's an argument to keep this article - the press coverage, as far as I can tell, was focused on the fact that there was a byelection and Davis' performance in it, as much as his personal campaign. The fact that there was plenty of media coverage when Davis first resigned, and when the results of the election were announced, but not so much in between, proves my point that it was the by-election that was really the notable topic here. If there had been no resignation and by-election, Davis' 'Freedom Campaign' would have received much less attention, and this article would probably not even exist; therefore, the latter should be considered a subtopic of the former rather than an event in its own right. Terraxos (talk) 01:13, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Despite saying 'finally' above, here's one more comment - I don't feel merging this content in with the main by-election article would constitute undue weight, as Davis' resignation and campaign on civil liberties is clearly the most important and significant aspect of this by-election, therefore deserves more weight than any of the other candidates (and the BBC, amongst others, covered it as such). There is precedent in having an article about a by-election which focuses heavily on one particular campaign: see Bermondsey by-election, 1983, which I believe is perfectly in keeping with the length and weight guidelines. Terraxos (talk) 01:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The merge propsal was initiated very recently, any moves to reopen/revisit based on consensus can change are clearly grounded in the fleeting interest basis, which as I said is irrelevant under the notability guideline. The merge proposal was on the talk page of a highly trafficked article, and still garnered no consensus. On notability, I think we just have a different interpretation of the bar of notability. This campaign is miles above being classed as a simple news blip not to be of note in its own right, this is seriously not even in doubt to me from my knowledge of wikipedia. And as I recently added, the campaign is not closed or finished going by Davis' statements. It arguably even pre-dated the by-election given the issues being debated. As for the bermondsey article, I would suggest that you may indeed be lacking in understanding of the manual of style, that article is frankly terrible. It has no lead section, and some very badly named, structured and worded sections. It took three scans of the article to figure out the story. Yes, it is about a single issue, but that issue is related to the by-election only. I realy can't even see under what title you would spin out the information that gives undue weight (presumably tatchel's leftist stance and homophobia against him). The article is biased towards Tatchel (you only find out Hughes actually won by looking at the Results table), but again you would still not justifiably double the length of tatchel's bio article to cover it that way either (although without looking, I would guess tatchel's article is much longer than Davis' bio). MickMacNee (talk) 21:07, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PS the lack of coverage of the campaign inbetween the resignation and voting phases is down to in my opinon the lack of any labour candidate, or an obvious credible anti-Davis candidate, leading to the lack of any reportable 'debates'. However, the campaign was discussed for nearly half of an edition of BBC's Question Time during this time. MickMacNee (talk) 21:15, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for providing us with some of the sources, but do you wish to add a comment to go with them? Are you in favour of keep, delete, merge, or rename (or a fifth option not discussed yet)? As these seem to be similar sources to the ones referred to by MickMacNee and Terraxos above I don't see what new information they add to this discussion. Road Wizard (talk) 20:29, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--86.29.243.15 (talk) 14:30, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: User's 2nd edit Road Wizard (talk) 13:17, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: User's 6th edit Road Wizard (talk) 13:17, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not employ original research to conclude the status of the campaign. Davis' official statement made clear the campaign will continue. Notability does not change with time, please do not try to disrupively chnage the nature of content with false pretenses. MickMacNee (talk) 14:46, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, but how does WP:OR apply to my comment? I have not presented unsourced information for inclusion in the article so I can't see the relevance of your point. I have presented a comment that the campaign websites appear inactive since the end of the by-election campaign as was suggested would happen by several editors after the article was created. I have also included a qualification at the start of the comment that "It may be a little early to judge..." I am sure other editors are mature enough to take the evidence I have presented in conjunction with the qualification to make their own minds up about the situation.
I would also like a full explanation about how I am being disruptive. Can you please provide links to the policies or guidelines that I have violated as I surely cannot see them. If I have not breached any policies then I would suggest that you reread WP:AGF and consider your comments carefully before you click the "Save page" button. Road Wizard (talk) 15:30, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. If you didn't understand the first time, please provide sources that the campaign is over, per your ORIGINAL RESEARCH that the campaign is over. I hope this is substantial explanation of the concept. I will withdraw the accusation of disruption if needed. MickMacNee (talk) 15:54, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please reread my comment. I have not stated anywhere that the campaign is over and in fact have made two explicit qualifications of my statement that it might not be over per "It may be a little early to judge..." and "It is possible that something more may come from the campaign in the future". What I have stated is that there has been no activity on the campaign website or associated websites since the day after the bi-election campaign. This is not original research. You can check the campaign website for yourself to see that what I have said is correct.
A clearer picture would be provided if we were discussing this a few months after the end of the by-election as then the activity or inactivity of the website would provide its own argument. However, as this deletion discussion may be closed at any moment the only option available is to present the facts as they stand at this moment in time. The website and supporting materials have not been updated since the day after the bi-election (this is a fact and not OR as can be verified by visiting the campaign website).
I know that you are eager to retain the article you created, but please do not misstate other people's comments. Road Wizard (talk) 16:12, 20 July 2008 (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.
Category