Talk:Leave Means Leave

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Merger proposal[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was to merge. Ralbegen (talk) 13:10, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I propose March to Leave be merged into Leave Means Leave as it does not appear to meet WP:EVENT. A similar decision was taken with regards to Talk:People's Vote#Proposed merge with 2019 People's Vote March. Pinging main contributors to both articles @The Anome, B dash, Slashmire, and Jay942942:. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 16:08, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would support this, no point of a separate article for something so closely connected.--Jay942942 (talk) 16:28, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You can refer to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/March to Leave. --B dash (talk) 13:19, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - There has been a lack of sustained coverage of the Leave Means Leave march. Andysmith248 (talk) 08:32, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reinstating the deleted 'Organisation overview' section (Proposal)[edit]

The edit in question by @Ralbegen:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Leave_Means_Leave&diff=prev&oldid=933683840

I often found the 'Organisation overview' section useful when discussing UK politics and remember that it was based on a page on the Leave Means Leave (LML) website.

I see that the page in question has now been deleted, but it's still in the the Web Archive. The most recent version that has all the information is from 18 April 2019. The information first appeared on the LML website on or before 31 Dec 2016. Both the advisory board and the supporters changed a bit in between (eg Dominic Raab was removed from the advisory board and Theresa Villiers from the supporters, and Jacob Rees-Mogg was added to the supporters etc), so it was clearly kept up-to-date throughout this period.

Would there be support for reinstating that section?