Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/All Party Parliamentary Flags & Heraldry Committee

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 delete. The issue is notability per WP:GNG. 6 people believe that the sourcing is insufficient for notability, while 3 believe that it is sufficient. That's clear enough to find a consensus for deletion, but the article may be userfied and (preferably via WP:DRV) restored if substantial new sources are found.  Sandstein  10:20, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All Party Parliamentary Flags & Heraldry Committee[edit]

All Party Parliamentary Flags & Heraldry Committee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable informal parliamentary group, fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG.

Despite its name, this is not a formally constituted select committee of the Parliament of the United Kingdom; it is an all-party parliamentary group (APG), and informal grouping of parliamentarians who have chosen to work together on an issue of mutual interest. Groups such as this are required to register with the Parliamentary authorities, but the purpose of the register is not to give the APGs any formal role; it is to check that they are what it says on the tin, i.e. that they are groups (with a minimum number of members), and that they are all-party. The current list of APGs includes 501 such groups, on a huge range of topics. That's an average of one group for about every 2½ MPs and peers; most MPs are members of several APGs.

So the existence of such a group is not particularly newsworthy. Most such groups little no external coverage in the general media, tho they may receive some notice in the specialist publications of their area of interest: e.g. the Slimming World APG or the Bingo APG may get mentioned in publications focusing on that topic.

None of three referenced sources helps in meeting the WP:GNG test of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject":

  1. The Flag institute reference is trivial; it mentions the APG only briefly in the final paragraph
  2. The entry on the register of APGs is not a secondary source
  3. The Conservative Home Gazette article is mostly about Andrew Rossindell rather than the APG, and is not independent of its subject

I have of course looked for other sources, under both the group's current name and its previous title the "Parliamentary Flag Group":

I tagged the article with {{notability}} in November 2009, and reviewed it again today after a post on my talk questioning the tag's validity. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:19, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The fact that the group is recognised by the British Government as existing within the walls of Westminster makes it noteworthy to every British citizen, and also to anyone, such as myself, who is interested in the workings of British government. Your reading of WP:GNG and WP:ORG is a bit severe in this instance - they are guidlines, not commandments. The article is well written, (NPOV) and the references are indicative of Notability - (what more reliable source than Parliamentry records?) - leave it be. MarkDask 18:17, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mark, the group is not "recognised by the British Government", but by Parliament, and Parl acknowledges only that it exists. A group can be on that list so long as it reports its existence and its composition meets the requirements ... and mere existence does not make anything notable.
I'm not being at all harsh in my reading of WP:GNG and WP:ORG: there are simply no references at all which come anywhere within miles of meeting the notability threshold. As to the notion that its mere existence in the Palace of Westminster makes it automatically notable, you should try proposing that as an amendment to WP:ORG: it would be a very radical change, because it would allow the creation of hundreds more articles on APGs on which there are no independent sources.
As to the notion that the article is neutral, neutrality is not an issue in deletion. Most of the claims are unsourced, and it reads like a puff piece for the committee, complete with WP:PEACOCK phrasing "FHC liaises widely and calls upon outside experts" ... "has become a vibrant and active body which has successfully influenced Parliament". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:00, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Worthy of being noted" - they persuaded Parliament to fly the flag every day from the Houses of parliament. That is more than merely acknowledging their existence, and Parliament cannot be said to be other than independent of the FHC. You can tame down the peacock language easily and I will go find references to their actions in UK newspapers. I have no doubt their actions have been reported on in the recent past - but the fact remains they are notable for having directly influenced Parliamentry procedure. MarkDask 20:45, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mark, you still misunderstand notability. It is not about worthiness or achievements; per WP:NRVE it is about whether "the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest, nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity."
In this case there is so far zero evidence of that "significant independent coverage or recognition". The claim that the APG caused the change in flag policy not sourced independently, nor even in primary sources; it's what the APG itself claims.
Good luck in finding those newspaper refs. I suspect that the closest you will get is maybe a few mentions of Andrew Rossindell and the flag, with the APG mentioned in passing. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:09, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I take your point - the group of itself, after much searching on my part, is not notable. I have struck through my Keep. MarkDask 00:11, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:03, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. —BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:03, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The committee and its activities are notable, having achieved results which have been noticed by substantial sources such as the BBC. There are clearly good alternatives to deletion such as merger into related articles such as Andrew Rosindell and Union Flag and it is our editing policy to prefer these. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:10, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Weasel words: substantial sources "such as". You only cite one ref; if there are more, let's see them.
    The committee gets a one-line mention in para 8 of the BBC article, which is not by any stretch of the imagination the "significant independent coverage or recognition" required by WP:NRVE. The issue of the flags is already partly covered in the article on Andrew Rosindell, to which Col W may wish to add his reference. It is not our policy to preserve WP:PEACOCK material which is unreferenced, or referenced to unreliable sources. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:59, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sources already provided such as Parliament and the Telegraph seem sufficiently reliable for our purpose. WP:PEACOCK is neither a policy nor a reason to delete; that's just a stylistic issue. Our deletion policy states "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD.". Colonel Warden (talk) 10:15, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article cannot be fixed through normal editing, because it lacks independent reliable sources for nearly all of its content.
    I didn't say that peacockery was a reason to delete: the reason to delete is lack of notability. However, you love citing WP:PRESERVE, but you seem not to have noticed that it says says "Preserve appropriate content" ... which does not include unreferenced peacockery. Despite the addition of the Telegraph namecheck, most of the article remains unreferenced, and the factoid in the Telegraph link -- that Rosindell in chair of the APG -- is already referenced in the article on him. So what exactly is the referenced content that you want to preserve?
    On notability, are you really really saying that a namecheck in an 80-word potted bio of an MP and a namecheck in one news story [1] amount to "significant independent coverage or recognition" of the APG? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:23, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- I think BrownHairedGirl's research and analysis of the so-called "sources" is spot on. A few passing mentions and name-drops do not constitute the substantial coverage that our verifiability and notability requirements call for. Reyk YO! 13:43, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - although initially I did believe this group had some sort of official capacity that gave it some sort of inherent notability, it looks like I was mistaken and BrownHairedGirl's substantial commentary has convinced me otherwise. Yaksar (let's chat) 20:06, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have already added several references to the article from sources such as BBC News, Hansard and the record of Early Day Motions. Some information such as the date of change on name of the committee is hard to provide external web references for simply because the minutes of APPGs are not published online and the name was changed at the AGM on the date given. The new name was passed to the House authorities so the list of APPGs was updated but it doesn't keep any record of previous names, or when names change. Similarly speeches given at functions in the Palace are not recorded in Hansard but the event was videoed so I will soon hopefully be able to reference video of the speeches given by Baroness Harman and others at the event.GrahamPadruig (talk) 00:05, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Graham, you added a few refs, some of which supported the facts asserted, although I removed one which did not. However, you appear to be confusing the question of factual verification with that of notability.
    The Early Day Motions and the deleted Hansard ref are primary sources, which are irrelevant to notability (see WP:GNG). As noted above, the BBC and Telegraph refs come nowhere near the standards set at WP:NRVE.
    I'm also a little puzzled by your assertion that you "will soon hopefully be able to reference video of the speeches"; that suggrests to me some sort of inside-track. Do you perhaps some involevement with the Flags APG, or with Andrew Rosindell MP? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:11, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - utterly non-notable political group with no significant coverage in reliable sources. Thanks to BrownHairedGirl for finding it and doing the research to show that this is the case. Robofish (talk) 01:01, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It looks as if the "Appointed Advisors" section really does need some form of referencing, otherwise we're just taking the author's word for it (original research). MarkDask 05:54, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the booklet which they have verifiably co-produced is linked to by Bucks county council, which seems a sort of notability. PamD (talk) 14:03, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Junior partner in the co-production. Page 4 of booklet says:

    Flying Flags in the United Kingdom - A Guide to Britain’s Flag Protocol
    First published in the United Kingdom in 2010 by the Flag Institute in association with the Flags and Heraldry Committee of the UK Parliament and with support from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport.
    Copyright © The Flag Institute 2010

    Which part of the notability guidelines lead you to suggest that this qualifies the APG as notable? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:16, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So far nobody has been able to reference this group of politicians known as the Committee. Andrew Rosindell and the Flag Institute - all power to them for their acomplishments but the all-party group of politicians are, with respect, no more than a sideshow. There are no independent sources, no literature whatever that refers to the committee itself. They do not exist as a standalone entity and are not therefore encyclopedic. Brownhairedgirl is right - this encyclopedia comes first. *Delete. MarkDask 18:59, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I wish them all the best but there are hundreds of registered All Party Parliamentary groups and only the most venerable of them are really notable. I do not see in the article a single source in a mainstream publication which is on the topic of this All Party Parliamentary group. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:55, 29 March 2011 (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/All_Party_Parliamentary_Flags_%26_Heraldry_Committee&oldid=1140204409"