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.
✗plicit 00:07, 27 June 2022 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 22:31, 17 June 2022 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Previously nominated via
WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗plicit 23:50, 24 June 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete: sources in the article aren't sufficient to satisfy
WP:ORG or
WP:GNG. Most of the coverage relates to a single stunt involving two of the group's members; the Guardian article offers slightly more substantial coverage of the group itself, but a single source isn't enough. I wasn't able to find any other coverage beyond passing mentions. It's possible a short section could be added to
Vote Leave#Relationship with other groups and this redirected here, but inclusion criteria for that section aren't entirely clear to me and adding this there could cause other problems. –
Arms & Hearts (
talk) 19:07, 25 June 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete: Atrocious referencing, very brief article, no website, little media coverage and it’s not even clear what the organisation was.
GeekBurst (
talk) 19:58, 26 June 2022 (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.