- 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. ...with no prejudice towards an early recreation if verifiable, reliable sources are found. Wifione Message 18:17, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
- The Reform Foundation ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No independent sources. A PROD was removed by the author. Sammy1339 ( talk) 23:08, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerly HMSSolent)| lambast 00:21, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerly HMSSolent)| lambast 00:21, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}}; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}}. |
Statement about "no independent sources" is factually inaccurate, the page includes references from: IndexOnCensorship, the British Parliament website, Daventry Express, Socialists for a Republic, CompanyCheck, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjsa ( talk • contribs) 17:46, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
I have also added sources from The Independent, The Guardian and UTV Media. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjsa ( talk • contribs) 18:18, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
A political organisation, that has been recognised as having a legitimate voice by Parliamentary committees and leading academics (despite only being recently formed), should have an article here; even if you disagree with their views. As Graham Allen MP ( Political and Constitutional Reform Committee chair) and Julian Huppert MP ( Political and Constitutional Reform Committee member) have contributed to the Foundation it is vital that this article stays to help those studying British constitutional reforms can understand their opinions, pubished by the Foundation, preceding them. Disagreement with political views is no reason to strip future researchers to access to a critical resource about the Foundation. Also it is important as they are tied into sister organisations Republic and Unlock Democracy.
I should also note that the PROD Sammy1339 referred to was added by them (soon after the article was originally created).
- Delete: The cited independent sources either make only a passing mention of this organization, or no mention at all. From WP:GNG: " Significant coverage addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." Vrac ( talk) 02:29, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
- Counter-argument - In fairness, although the original article wasn't the best referenced (though certainly not the worst), on the current article the reference from their own web pages, CompanyCheck, Daventry Express are entirely about the organisations. Around a quarter of the Socialists for a Republic article was about the organisation and the speech from Stephen Haseler. The others are entirely about the topics being discussed while noting the organisation. Considering how many articles are worse than this but are acceptable for Wikipedia, it seems ridiculous to remove this (especially when it appears to be politically motivated). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8B0:2C9:1546:7C8F:D649:4F05:3C27 ( talk) 19:34, 6 December 2014 (UTC) — 2001:8B0:2C9:1546:7C8F:D649:4F05:3C27 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Comment: The organization's own website is not an independent source. The "Socials for a Republic article" is not an article, it is a facebook post, and it only mentions the organization's name with no other substance about the org. CompanyCheck is a registry with nothing but names and addresses, the Daventry Express reference says nothing about the organization. As for the comment about other Wikipedia articles, see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. I'm assuming the political motivation accusation was directed at someone else, I've got no skin in this game, check my edit history if you like. Vrac ( talk) 20:06, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
It is worth noting that compared to similar organisations on Wikipedia this article is well referenced. The article on Unlock Democracy which is the largest pro-democracy group in the UK has 3 references, this article has 15. The quality of references is largely similar to that of Quilliam Foundation, it clearly isn't fair to remove this article; especially on the basis of it's references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JayDaug ( talk • contribs) 21:21, 6 December 2014 (UTC) — JayDaug ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Are you familiar with Wikipedia's policy on sock puppets? Vrac ( talk) 21:48, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
To those of us in the Electoral Reform Society and the British constitutional reform sector the Reform Foundation is quite well known; I think the reason some people have critised some other articles for not being sufficiently referenced (I.e. Unlock Democracy, Electoral Reform Society) is they fail to understand that this remains a predominantly offline sector (due to average age of members, etc.) For an article in this sector it is remarkably well referenced. It may not be perfect, but I think it's beneficial for us to have it rather than take it away. Thanks. MWill75 ( talk) 22:25, 6 December 2014 (UTC) Also just to comment again after reading the discussion. The Daventry Express article is clearly signed at the bottom as being from "Dr Ken Ritchie, Chairman, The Reform Foundation, Barby". Vrac was wrong in this case, the Foundation is mentioned. MWill75 ( talk) 23:21, 6 December 2014 (UTC)— MWill75 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton ( talk) 13:48, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 ( talk) 08:43, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:40, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
- Delete, not a single independent source, the two RS - the Independent and the Telegraph - do not describe the foundation, the abov votes from puppets are not policy-based.-- Ymblanter ( talk) 10:29, 1 January 2015 (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.