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. Lack of sources meeting the many requirements of WP:CORP / WP:GNG. While a late discussion of the article at Searchlight led me to briefly consider a relist, the opinions on previous sources and policies present in the discussion left little room for me plausibly imagine that that article would sway consensus without short of at least one more independent, in-depth source beyond it.

I've declined to honor the request for salting. I don't yet see enough evidence of repeated recreation to justify it. -- joe decker^{talk to me} 19:37, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Traditional Britain Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)

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

Entirely non-notable organisation. The only third-party references are to annual dinners: a search of news sources comes up with nothing mentions othr than these reports. Google hits seem all to be generated by the organisation itself. TheLongTone (talk) 09:10, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I should confess to an editing history on this article. When it appeared I did a copyedit to remove a few peacock phrases. I subsequently made a rather ill-tempered series of edits removing a fair bit of content. This was a rsponse to an editor removing an unsourced (but uncontentious) addition I had made: in response I removed all the contnt that was unsourced. Which was snippy, but merely interpreting rules strictly. I've raised the issues of lack of proof of notability & lack of references with the article author on his talk page, but he seems to think I am being abusive rather than simply pointing out Wikpedia policy.TheLongTone (talk) 09:22, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is clear to me, at least, as a new user who came to Wikipedia expecting courtesey and respect, that this user, Mr Long Tone, fails all these. I would ask people to look at his astonishingly rude remarks on my personal Talk Page. The manner in which he came in against my first article like a ton of bricks and attacked it mercillesly shows to me that he has some kind of an agenda which goes beyond mere editing practice. This group has been around for some years during which it has been active, publishing, events, and has a website. Simon Heffer, Gerard Batten M.E.P., and Francis Fulford all felt that they were important enough for them to address at formal dinners. Does that not say something? Not everything is available on internet links. Kind regards. TomTower (talk) 12:55, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Does that not say something?" Actually, no; notability is not contagious; it cannot be "caught" by touching a notable person, or paying them to address your club. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:16, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This group do not pay people to address them. People are invited and they either accept or decline. My point was that here are eminent people who accepted. I note from the newspaper mention that at least one Peer was present at the Fulford dinner. Surely if this were a meaningless outfit no-one would be bothered with it? TomTower (talk) 10:21, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TomTower, please be warned that this discussion is about whether Traditional Britain Group is sufficiently notable for a Wikipedia article, and that will be decided in accordance with Wikipedia's notability and sourcing polices, not by personal attacks and counter-attacks. (And as for the "astonishingly rude remarks" on your Talk page, I can only say that you must be exceedingly easily astonished) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:11, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise if I have caused any offence. It is just how things appear to me. TomTower (talk) 13:24, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, fair enough. What's needed now is reliable sources which demonstrate notability, and if those are provided, the article will be kept. They don't need to be online - print editions of national newspapers, current affairs magazines, etc, are fine too (but self-published sources are not sufficient). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:03, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently the latest May edition of Searchlight magazine has dedicated its front page to the Traditional Britain Group, along with a two-page article.TomTower (talk) 15:54, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently not. Nothing in the TOC of the current issue, and nothing about TBG at all on Searchlight's website, from this or any other month. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 16:08, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're wrong. Maybe you are looking at April's edition? I speak of the latest printed edition (not yet up on-line because they want the magazine sold first!) Also, I see the Libertarian Alliance have something up: http://libertarianalliance.wordpress.com/2012/05/01/house-of-lords-reform-traditional-britain-speaks-out/ TomTower (talk) 20:36, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, I haven't seen the May issue yet. As for the Libertarian Alliance, that is not a reliable source accprding to WP policies, and it only obliquely mentions TBG anyway. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:55, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If anything the Searchlight article [[1]] is an argument for non -notability: saying "Its membership and influence has been fairly small so far" and although they are described as growing, that's a maybe: WP:CRYSTAL.TheLongTone (talk) 06:52, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See also WP:UPANDCOMING. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:27, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You ask for internet mentions and links. I provide this one and it is unacceptable. Why is it any more unacceptable than something from the website of "The Guardian"? TomTower (talk) 10:21, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete If the extent of coverage in reliable sources is who the guest speaker was at a couple of dinner events, that's not significant coverage. Fails WP:CORP by a country mile. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 14:00, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete - entirely non-notable organisation, fails WP:CORP. ukexpat (talk) 14:22, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There are insufficient independant sources for an article. That of course may change and we could write an article later. It is not even mentioned on the Searchlight website, which is the main source for right-wing groups in the UK.[2] TFD (talk) 14:43, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and SALT: Absolute dearth of significant coverage in independent sources. No evidence that the group actually exists except as a term meaning "Lord Sudeley and his occasional dinner guests". Zero evidence that it has any notability in, significance for, or impact on British politics whatsoever. All existing information comes from the group itself, at best second-hand from other loonie-fringe groups. Nothing of encyclopedic value. Delete in its entirety. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 15:06, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete Not notable and fails WP:CORP. 22Dragon22Burn 22dragon22burn (talk) 17:19, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Even you you bend the rules and count MPs attending events towards notability, this information is still unverifiable. The only source that backs this up is the group's own website, and Wikipedia articles should never be used as reprints of other organisations' websites. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 19:20, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia is absolutely littered with website links as sources. TomTower (talk) 10:24, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Non-independent sources can sometimes be used for factual information but never count towards notability. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:24, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails all tests of notability. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:58, 30 April 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.