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 speedy keep. I have determined that this deletion request was bad-faith, frivolous, and/or vexatious and should not be pursued. Stifle (talk) 22:34, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Swinton Circle

[edit]

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

Requested for deletion by the Swinton Circle Chairman (OTRS ticket#2010031410012696) due to vandalism concerns. From what I can see, the organization is at best marginally notable and I don't see why we should not give them their wish. Stifle (talk) 09:27, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't understand how they could be considered "marginally notable"; they're the driving force behind the Powellite faction of the British Conservative Party. Thirty seconds on HighBeam shows that the group are the continued subject of significant coverage in multiple independent non-trivial sources ([1], [2], [3], [4]), and according to their own website their speakers in 2009 alone included inter alia Peter Mullen, Douglas Murray, Jim Allister, Philip Dunne, Nigel Hastilow, Peter Bone and numerous MPs; this is not some tiny fringe club but a significant faction within the political party likely to form the next British government in two months, albeit a faction which the party leadership prefer to pretend doesn't exist. While I can't see the OTRS request, I assume it relates to the split in the faction between two rival wings each claiming the same name (see the article talkpage for some background), but I can't see any possible grounds for a "default to delete" position, and can see plenty of grounds for keeping. AFD is not a mechanism for political parties to try to airbrush embarrassing incidents out of their history in the run-up to a general election. – iride scent 10:05, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Iridesecent. Dwain (talk) 13:52, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article is a constant victim of politically inspired vandalism, and certainly the organisation does not warrant a Wikipedia entry.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Swinton_Circle" —Preceding unsigned comment added by AlanDHarvey (talk • contribs) 18:37, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Query to Stifle Is the "Swinton Circle Chairman" who submitted the OTRS ticket Mr Harvey, who is not the chairman of the Swinton Circle which is the topic of the article, but of a rival body of the same name formed following a split in the wake of this article? If so, while his comments are not necessarily invalid, he has a severe COI when it comes to assessing the importance of the "rival" Swinton Circle that is the subject of the article. – iride scent 19:14, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot answer this question because of the confidentiality of OTRS, sadly. Stifle (talk) 19:27, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Iridescent. Vandalism is not a reason for deletion. It's often an unofficial indicator of notability in that someone desperately wants rid... Peridon (talk) 20:14, 16 March 2010 (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.