Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Young Britons for Liberty

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. MBisanz ^talk 01:21, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Young Britons for Liberty[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG, sources in article all primary sources, google search reveals no secondary sources. Dschslava^Δxparlez moi 06:02, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The person raising this deletion request has already been cautioned once on his/her user talk page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dschslava) for over zealous requests for such deletions. The sources are not all primary; only one out of five is. The Backbencher is an independent media outlet, as is the AD.net Dutch media clip on YouTube. The organisation Students for Liberty is independent and based in America. NUScape is a cross-party campaign. A Google search does actually reveal such secondary sources.

Delete There are not secondary sources which provide any kind of serious coverage of this group. I like what the group has to say BTW.Thoughtmonkey (talk) 07:25, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 12:00, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 12:00, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 12:00, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 12:00, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So you are saying the issue is not the secondary sources but the amount of coverage of YBL that they feature? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spock147 (talk • contribs) 23:55, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. BTW the the Backbencher source mentioned above is the reference used in the article? I did not find anything about Young Britons for Liberty in it. Apart from the fact that it is written by Luke Nash-Jones, National Chairman of Young Liberty (=YBL), of course. As is the other ref, http://esfliberty.org/blog/2016/06/22/brexit-the-fight-to-regain-british-liberty/ So hardly independendent sources. I think the article, as it is, also fails WP:A7. An entirely different matter, I know. --WikiHannibal (talk) 17:52, 11 August 2016 (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.