Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Led By Donkeys

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. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:02, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Led By Donkeys

[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)

Fails WP:GNG; media reports about the organisation are trivial. RaviC (talk) 00:00, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:10, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:10, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:10, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now.
Disagree with the characterization of media reports as trivial. While some of the reports are incidental mentions (e.g. "they unfurled this banner" within news coverage of the People's Vote March) there are also other sources, including citations already included such as [1], [4] that are focused specifically on the group and its activities, including (anonymously) interviewing and profiling the members, discussing their motivations, and providing more background on the genesis of the campaign. These are not mere passing mentions. Furthermore there exist multiple corroborating reports from independent sources, several of which are reputable mainstream news outlets, and includes international coverage e.g. NPR, Irish News. Although the group are on hiatus as of 16 Apr 2019, it seems they are planning to resume activities in the future. With the Brexit situation still ongoing and evolving, I'd like to echo some of the sentiments from here and suggest to hold off for now, wait for current events play out, let the dust settle, and then reconsider if this should be kept or merged with this one or some other appropriate article. — 2406:3003:2077:179A:C998:20C6:8CCF:5730 (talk) 05:06, 19 April 2019 (UTC)— 2406:3003:2077:179A:C998:20C6:8CCF:5730 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep per WP:GNG. The group and their campaign have been the subject of numerous articles in reliable sources, including in the international media. I'm sorry you consider them to be "trivial". I've cited a few more, lest there be any ambiguity about this, including this excellent, lengthy article in Wired magazine: [1], and this Guardian article: [2]. -- The Anome (talk) 11:27, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
keep. The title at first looked like a silly joke, but the coverage in the Guardian is about this subject; and it is quite extensive. For this reason, keeping it is justified. Graywalls (talk) 17:14, 22 April 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.