Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Turning Point UK

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 merge & redirect to Turning Point USA. IT can always be spun back out again should it achieve lasting coverage. Black Kite (talk) 10:32, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Turning Point UK

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

It may have got a degree of publicity dues to its launch, and nature. But at this time it is far to early to say if it will have any lasting notability or impact. Slatersteven (talk) 17:26, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:13, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:13, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:13, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Does notability have to be lasting? Rathfelder (talk) 19:41, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Rathfelder, yes per WP:LASTING. ―MJL -Talk-^☖ 22:15, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Rathfelder and MJL: Actually WP:LASTING is a part of the Wikipedia:Notability (events) guideline. This topic is about an organization, not an event. As such, WP:LASTING is not applicable to the topic. For more information about the notability of organizations, see WP:ORG. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:52, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Wow, I am just surprised this exists. Having said that, my own personal dislike for TPUSA will probably bias me here. Therefore, I will recuse myself from this vote (or !vote-- I forget which). ―MJL -Talk-^☖ 22:18, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In one respect this is the point of my AFD, this has gotten this amount of publicity because of (and directly related to) its links to its US parent. There is (at this time) no evidence of truly independent notability.Slatersteven (talk) 10:27, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Slatersteven, I can see that, but I'd also totally delete the Charlie Kirk article if given ~~the chance~~ a likeminded consensus for the same reason (at least at this moment in time). I'd probably would want to redirect it to TPUSA as well since that is the only thing he's known for, so it's best for me to stay away from this group of subjects because I'd throw the legitimacy of the process into doubt. Personal bias and all that. I'd rather be safe than sorry. ―MJL -Talk-^☖ 17:12, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is not motivated by dislike, there are plenty of things I dislike more then this lot (is there more then one?), that have articles I would never delete. The issue is I do not see this having any impact or (after a few months) being little more then three students in the union bar moaning about Brexit. This is why I mentioned lasting impact. This could be merged with the parent article with zero loss of information (as we have none). But outside of this Kirk Character nothing and no one surrounding this is notable.Slatersteven (talk) 17:44, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To illustrate, we know more about the US head then the UK head. Are there any interviews with Mr George Farmer, pictures? Was he at the launch (if not why not?), does anyone in fact give a flying circus about him?Slatersteven (talk) 17:52, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That guidance is about events, not organizations.Rathfelder (talk) 22:44, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think he meant WP:SUSTAINED.Slatersteven (talk) 10:09, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to its parent organisation. It's got a burst of coverage for its launch that makes it a likely search term and gives us some sources so its worth mentioning but there is nowhere near enough (yet) to sustain an independent article. Thryduulf (talk) 11:52, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The test is significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. We now have the Times, the BBC, The Telegraph, the Spectator, New Statesman, the Guardian, the Indy, not to mention the Sun. So much as I dislike the organisation, it's clearly notable. Rathfelder (talk) 16:31, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect - non-notable spin-off attempt organization that fails WP:GNG with a recentist coverage. Organization hasn't gained any coverage for their major activities and events in the UK. At present time, unworthy of an article that would possibly be a PR magnet. Organization will probably have no lasting notability or impact. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 20:58, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Futurism is not part of the consideration of notability. The organisation has a lot of coverage of its existence, even if it does nothing.Rathfelder (talk) 13:18, 10 February 2019 (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.