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 Draftify. There doesn't seem to be much consensus here, except that what there is probably doesn't belong in article space *at the moment*. Therefore I have dropped it back to Draft:Liverpool 29 if anyone would like to have a go at it (or indeed, to merge it somewhere useful, if there is such a place). Black Kite (talk) 10:21, 1 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Liverpool 29

Liverpool 29 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

This article has been unsourced for over 14 years. While I can certainly find evidence of broad left-wing splinter groups in Liverpool and Walton Real Labour, I can't find anything referring to the term "Liverpool 29" directly, that's not obviously originated from the article. Obviously a search is made difficult by many false positives (mostly WP mirrors, football results, or chapter / page 29) but there's nothing obvious that comes to mind. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:42, 3 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 16:02, 3 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 16:02, 3 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• Weak keep with a move to Liverpool City Council Labour Militants; failing that, add material to the page on the Walton by-election. There's a story here that I see here on a radical site that reprints an earlier article, and apparently on pages 292–94 of this book; I can only see 294. There is presumably a lot of old newspaper coverage, but I agree, it hasn't gone down to history as the Liverpool 29. (The Lesley Mahmood article refers to a "Liverpool 47", which presumably means the entire council, or the entire Labour contingent on the council; these look to me like terms that have not stood the test of time.) Very far from my areas of expertise and I don't have the necessary access, which I suspect may mean dead-tree newspaper archives in Liverpool, but I'm inclined towards keep in some form given that the sources I did turn up paint it as a big old mess. Yngvadottir ( talk) 16:38, 3 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Comment. re. "dead-tree newspaper archives in Liverpool", the Liverpool Echo is in fact one of the few regional newspapers to be available on the British Newspaper Archive for the entire late 20th Century, right up to 1999. So there isn't the black hole there is with so many other regional titles which are only on the BNA up to about the mid-20th Century, and no doubt the BNA would therefore contain reports on this and related subjects (though I agree that this article doesn't have its ideal title). RobinCarmody ( talk) 23:37, 7 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Comment - I am an ultra-inclusionist with respect to articles on political parties, their leaders, and their youth sections since this is the sort of material that our readers have a right to expect in a comprehensive encyclopedia. That said, I am not sure that this is more than a faction who was the subject of a smackdown by Labour leadership. Perhaps an article could be created on that smackdown, which may well pass GNG; but this simply doesn't seem to be either a party or an encyclopedia-worthy search term. Personal to Yngvadottir... You were recently lamenting not having an urgent fixit-project to work on with the temporary DDOS hiatus of Wikipediocracy. There ya go.... I rarely suggest "fix it or kill it," but that's where we are here, I think. Carrite ( talk) 11:05, 11 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 00:05, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete No evidence of WP:LASTING. A temporary local politics story doesn't become long-term notable just because it takes place in a large city. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:12, 21 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• merge although I can't see a target offhand. The Militant group within Liverpool Council at this time was highly notable. This particular group weren't as well-known as Hatton was, but they're still part of the story and worth covering. Andy Dingley ( talk) 23:27, 22 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Userfy to the userspace of anyone who wants to take on a little mini-project, I'd offer myself, but well you know. If no one is willing to take this up at this time, delete for now instead. The WP:Lasting coverage requirement is not met so this can't remain a separate article. Nonetheless the content seems to belong somewhere as part of a larger article where WP:NNC will apply. So Userfy to preserve content/attribution history for now, or rather to avoid the hassle of refunding this later, and merge once a good target has been found for the material. Pinging @ Andy Dingley: to see if their interested given the comment above and @ Carrite: given inclusionist philosophy. Spectrum {{ UV}} 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D ( talk) 21:38, 31 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Userfying is fine with me, if that's what you're asking... Carrite ( talk) 21:46, 31 March 2020 (UTC) reply

@ Carrite: I was asking if you would be willing to host the material temporarily at say User:Carrite/Liverpool 29 Spectrum {{ UV}} 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D ( talk) 21:52, 31 March 2020 (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.