Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Traditional Britain Group

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. - Mailer Diablo 13:43, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Traditional Britain Group

Non-notable organization. Per WP:CORP, organizations need to show at least two non-trivial instances of media coverage to establish notability, not counting self-published material, advertisements, press releases, etc. Google and some media searches didn't turn up anything of note other than Wikipedia & its mirrors, and the article itself lists only the TBG's own publications and two entries in the Daily Telegraph "Court and Social" page, which is apparently a page where people may purchase advertisementsof marriages, dinners, and other social events. (2) Nothing on the page is verified, as far as I can see, (3) the page reads like an advertisement for the group. (4) Finally, given the lack of verifiable sources about the group, I don't see any way to fix any of the above. TheronJ 10:09, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. The google test is very telling. 1,000 people on your mailing list does not make notability, nor does having your dinners in the Daily Telegraph. I did a search for any other newspaper mentions and there was only an incidental mention in The Independent for having had Tony Martin as guest speaker at their 2003 dinner, and an inclusion in The Times court and social page. David | Talk 10:13, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as above. There's also something unpleasently POV about it. OBM | ^{blah blah blah} 11:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Its connection to David Irving makes it worth keeping. There should be room for this in Wikipedia. Deletion is not the right way of fixing POV. Editing is. Ground Zero | t 11:11, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Its connection to David Irving is so tenuous as to not even be mentioned in David Irving's article, and unless they hold their next dinner in the visiting room in that Austrian jail, I don't think he'll be coming. David | Talk 11:42, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  • You have failed to address the nominator's point that there are no sources which can be used to neutralize the article. If you wish to demonstrate that this article can be neutralized, then please cite sources. Without them, you have no argument. Uncle G 11:44, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and lol at David's comment about Irving. Batmanand | Talk 16:25, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Traditional Delete as per nom and David Marcus22 22:17, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

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.