Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moggmentum

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 no consensus. No consensus to keep the article or merge the content to another. In any case, discussion has died down, and merging the content does not require AfD. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 05:22, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Moggmentum[edit]

Moggmentum (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)

A very poorly-written, poorly-sourced embarrassment to an encyclopedia. PROD tag removed by creator with bad-faith rationale of "Just because it doesn't subscribe to your ideology doesn't mean it should be removed." Fails WP:GNG - sourcing is rubbish such as Breitbart ("The news site Breitbart London, which is especially popular with conservative grassroots in the online sphere, was the first major media to back Moggmentum...publishing the first serious case for Prime Minister Rees-Mogg article"), Instagram and The Sun. Most of the credible sources mention Rees-Mogg in passing regarding the Conservative leadership (which he has said himself he is not seeking). Violation of WP:NOTNEWS ("Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion") - this is the worst kind of silly season waffle. Fails WP:NPOV with lines such as "LGBT activists hijacking #Moggmentum by posting homoerotic gifs." In short, burn it with fire. AusLondonder (talk) 17:43, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder (talk) 17:47, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder (talk) 17:49, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder (talk) 17:49, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't even a vacancy in the leadership and he has played down the likelihood of him standing if there was. This is crystal ball stuff. AusLondonder (talk) 19:26, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The sources used include: BBC News, The Guardian, ITV News etc therefore I do not agree that the "sourcing is rubbish". The story may blow over and the social media become less prominent once the "silly season" is over, however it has gained enough attention to meet GNG as the "topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".— Rod talk 18:38, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The sources seem fine, (BBC, ITV, etc.), the article seems fine, it's attracting moderate media attention, and, if Theresa May were to resign, he would be a serious contender. In fact, I agree with both the reasons above. Pianoguysfantalktome 20:13, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Jacob Rees-Mogg (or Delete). I agree with the nominator that this is silly-season, speculative fluff; it's a media meme created by bored journalists, not (yet) a genuinely notable political movement. Admittedly, Milifandom has an article, which is almost as silly; but one unnecessary article on a transient political meme doesn't justify another. (The odd thing is that Corbynmania, which is more significant than either of those, doesn't have an article.) Anyway, there's no valuable content here that can't be merged into Jacob Rees-Mogg. Robofish (talk) 22:36, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep its notable and well sourced. I can not understand how having an article on a notable phenomenon can ever be an "embarrassment to an encyclopedia". Also your cry to "burn it with fire", akin to electronic book burning a staple of oppression and censorship I find offensive, no books electronic or otherwise should ever be 'burned'. WP is WP:NOTCENSORED and therefore it is only a good thing for it to continue with this page which documents the rise of Moggmentum, which has helped catapult Jacob Rees-Mogg to now become the Conservative front runner for replacing Theresa May. I also disagree with Robofish that it should be merged into Rees-Mogg's own article as this page is about an independent grassroots movement not about Jacob Rees-Mogg himself. This is why these pages exist, as this is not unique, just like the others (Milifandom, Momentum (organisation), Corbynmania and The People for Bernie Sanders) they are about the movement and the followers, not the person they follow. ThinkingTwice contribs | talk 08:07, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - meets GNG requirements and is well sourced. Atsme📞📧 18:28, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Breitbart, The Sun and Instagram are the exact opposite of what we consider good sources. AusLondonder (talk) 03:43, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge It's not actually a real movement, the article just refers to various jokes about Mogg. It is as yet just a short-lived meme, and WP:NNEWS is probably the nearest appropriate standard (not WP:ORG). If an actual organisation is created, then it will almost certainly merit an article, but there's no reason why this could not be covered in Jacob Rees-Mogg. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:39, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Jacob Rees-Mogg. I haven't seen anyone here make a compelling case for having this as a stand-alone article. Nor do I see how such a case could be made -- everything here can easily be used in a new section in Mogg's own article. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:20, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge seems appropriate here.Egaoblai (talk) 15:49, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Hi from Australia. Blokes from Eton & Oxford are like people from another planet as far as we’re concerned. But, even if they are up themselves, they’re entitled to a fair go.

I’m only writing this because the introductory sentence of the remove argument is ridiculous. Since when has it been a test for admission that an entry in an encyclopaedia be well written? The Britannica is hardly a rival of Fowlers Modern English Usage. And the sourcing? Well, give me a break. There is a lot of stuff on Wikipedia - and in the Bible - that would get a Fail if you applied strict logic in testing the reliability of the sources. Wikipedia is interesting because it has information available about almost everything. And so here is something about Rees-Mogg. I didn’t realise he existed until I read about him tonight in The Telegraph online, way down here on the far side of the earth. I suppose I should be burned at the stake for reading The Tele; but I don’t subscribe to it. I scan the headlines and read until the paywall goes up in order to see how the other half lives. The same reason I read The Guardian online. Trump alerted me to the need for this. There is so much fake news going around you have to check everything and make up your own mind. I’m even looking at Brietbart now. So, Rees-Mogg is an RC. He breeds at an amazing rate. He doesn’t support gay marriage or abortion. Whether that is offensive depends on whether you agree with him. I thought democratic societies were about freedom of speech. Is a thing calling itself an encyclopedia now about to shut down articles which may offend a lot of people? Will discussion of the practice of human sacrifice by the Mayan civilisation be deleted because it was just so depraved? (Yeah, I checked that - on Wikipedia). Give this a run. It won’t hurt anyone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CrocodileDundee (talk • contribs) 10:47, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The removal of PROD was "Fully sourced, went through all afc procedures. Just because it doesn't subscribe to your ideology doesn't mean it should be removed" - unsurprisingly nominator has ignored the points and quoted my comment, by doing this they have ironically reinforced my comment. Ryanharmany (talk) 16:04, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ryanharmany: I see that the bolded "Keep" in front of CrocodileDundee's posting was added by you, and was not a part of the original posting. Are you operating both accounts? NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:18, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@NewYorkActuary: Look again, the keep was already there but not properly formatted (bullet pointed or bolded).Ryanharmany (talk) 16:40, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You're quite right. I should have checked more carefully and I've stricken my question. Please accept my apologies. NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:45, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Jacob Rees-Mogg or Next Conservative Party (UK) leadership election. Most of the references are coverage of Rees-Mogg or of the Conservative Party's leadership rather than the WP:GNG-required "substantial coverage" of this grassroots movement. As a result the article largely relies on original research. Clearly poor writing isn't a criterion for deletion, but an article's reliance on original research is often a symptom of non-notability. It is here. Ralbegen (talk) 20:47, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 16:51, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:52, 16 September 2017 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Moggmentum&oldid=1142282855"