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 Keep. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 17:58, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Positive Money (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)

Activist organization -- the article is sourced to almost entirely to primary sources and opinion pieces, with promotional narratives, off-topic material, and announcements of future initiatives of the organization. SPECIFICO talk 20:20, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Or rather, "edit then keep". The "edit" part is because the page has been radically changed in the past 48 hours by a well meaning but clearly inexperienced editor that appears unfamiliar with Wikipedia policies. It is unfortunate that SPECIFICO has chosen to try and get the page deleted rather than simply revert it back to it's previous, healthier state. With regard primary sources - it should be noted that there are some very high quality secondary sources that are referenced, including The Wall St Journal, New Statesman, The Guardian, the BBC. Reissgo (talk) 22:14, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The only secondary sources are cited for trivia or from press release announcements of various sorts. No discussion of significance or expert analysis of anything notable. It's a self-prmoting advocacy group -- including promotional Wikipedia editing from all appearances. SPECIFICO talk 22:53, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is true of most of the sources, however at least one of the Guardian articles is more than this -- the coverage seems to be nearly but not quite "No discussion of significance", IMO FrankP (talk) 11:24, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:38, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:38, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the article, because the arguments presented by Specifico (links of interest?) to delete it are simply not correct. There is no policy to delete all think tanks articles.
  Adèle Fisher (talk) 10:20, 25 February 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Could you show where Specifico has claimed there is such a policy about think-tanks? And why you believe the arguments presented are not correct. Questioning notability and sources is valid. FrankP (talk) 11:24, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep For the moment, to enable it to be improved if possible. Then perhaps its notability (which I do believe is marginal at best) can be properly re-assessed. I partially agree with Reissgo that recent edits are a little haphazard, but would not support simply reverting as there has also been some relevant material added. FrankP (talk) 11:24, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep notable and quite well sourced: just needs some improvement. L293D (☎ • ✎) 14:03, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- Notability should be made clear in the leading sentences or paragraphs, e.g. with clear statements about membership or influence. I find that unclear now, since the founder and the international movement are not plainly notable or clearly described. Sources are strong enough. I am unsure about deletion; I don't want to read all the sources or make other readers do it. -- econterms (talk) 21:32, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In a nutshell the sources turn out to be blog pieces by non-notable authors, including some in otherwise acceptable newspapers, or they're primary-sourced to Positive Money's own website, or they're incidental snippets precipitated by press releases or other non-noteworthy events. SPECIFICO talk 21:38, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A comment about notability - I'll just point out that if you do a search in Hansard for the phrase "positive money" (in quotes), you will see that this organisation has been mentioned seven times in the UK parliament. Additionally both the former and current directors have been a talking head on the BBC and other channels on a regular basis talking about banking issues. They have shared panel discussions with the likes of the Financial Times chief economist Martin Wolf, the head of the FSA Lord Adair Turner, and former Chancellor of the Exchequer Ed Balls... Meetings that they have organised have been addressed by MPs from at least three different political parties including the current head of the green party. I could go on in this vein if required. There is no question of a lack of notability of the organisation. Reissgo (talk) 23:40, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

These sources for the article seem relevant and not "primary sourced" or "blogs" -- Wall Street Journal Bloomberg Guardian New Statesman FrankP (talk) 00:06, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The last one is just a non-notable opinion piece in the New Statesman. Th others don't seem to describe anything of much significance. "FT chief economist Martin Wolf" is a newspaper reporter, not a notable economist. etc etc. There's no doubt they've cobbled together some public relations exposure (including Wikipedia editors from time to time), but I don't see anything that we would find notable. I mean, placards on the street is not all that uncommon. SPECIFICO talk 00:30, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To suggest that Martin Wolf is a newspaper reporter and not a notable economist is utter nonsense. As a response to the 2008 crash, the UK government set up a five man "Independent Commission on Banking" - Martin Wolf was on the panel. He was not there as a journalist. Reissgo (talk) 07:25, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

From the point of view of a UK campaign group, to get a write-up the WSJ is not an everyday occurrence. You do seem to be straining too hard to minimise these reliable sources, instead of seeing them in perspective. The notability is not huge but it is not non-existent either. FrankP (talk) 08:12, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep The subject is trivially evidently notable. (It needs some serious work over, for sure, but that is another matter.) And notability if, of course, an attribute that's assessed irrespective of the subject's worth per se. Damn you, Herostratus!.. :-) The Gnome (talk) 04:54, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I see an advocacy group with a well-run PR campaign, and little more. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:08, 3 March 2018 (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.