Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unity (asylum seekers organisation)

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 substantially rewritten, strong post-rewrite consensus to keep. There was one objection made after the rewrite started, which stated "Can't find any RS which show notability." As of a few minutes ago, the totality of the reliable sources show significant coverage. (non-admin closure). davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:11, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unity (asylum seekers organisation)

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

Absolutely no evidence of notability offered - not even evidence that it exists. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:05, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 09:11, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 09:11, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:34, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Could have been deleted by speedyA7, in my opinion. DGG ( talk ) 05:31, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:DGG Your opinion on Speedy A7 is manifestly wrong, then. A7 cannot be used where an article has a claim to notability - very evident from the number of sources on the page which have been found AusLondonder (talk) 10:02, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless substantially improved -- Asylum (and illegal immigration) is a hot topic in UK. According to the UK government, a large proportion of those seeking asylum do not qualify under the appropriate convention. I suspect that this is a very small organisation, with an agenda to undermine UK immigration control, rather than to provide immigrants with appropriate advice and support. BLP articles are now required to provide sources. I think this should also apply to articles on organisations. This one has not a single source, not even a link to the organisation's website. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:35, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Peterkingiron, this discussion is not exactly the place for your WP:SOAPBOX anti-immigration rhetoric namely "I suspect that this is a very small organisation, with an agenda to undermine UK immigration control" which could be considered offensive or damaging by the organisation. For the record, the UK has some of the strongest anti-immigration laws in the world, which it seems likely this organisation can "undermine" AusLondonder (talk) 10:02, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per nom. Can't find any RS which show notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:18, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With great respect, User:onel5969, you must not have looked very hard. The Guardian, The Independent, STV, The Scotsman etc are generally considered reliable source. AusLondonder (talk) 10:02, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have given the article a major rewrite. I have identified multiple reliable sources that cover the activities of this organisation and made use of them as references. Most of these sources are articles written by journalists for national newspapers. I feel that this media coverage clearly establishes the notability of this small organisation. Drchriswilliams (talk) 21:00, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given the substantial rewrite I am giving some time for reconsideration. Stifle (talk) 14:08, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 14:08, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I didn't see the previous version, but the rewrite is well referenced and establishes notability. Dalliance (talk) 22:29, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I also didn't see the previous version, but the rewrite is well referenced with high quality sources going back to 2006 and establishes notability. Pincrete (talk) 21:27, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 14:11, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per my previous post. Dalliance (talk) 22:36, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - At current state with many sources seems pretty clear to me that it meets WP:GNG. Very disappointing that the nom User:RHaworth seems to have failed to follow the steps at WP:BEFORE, given the large number of independent, reliable sources that have been found. AusLondonder (talk) 10:02, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think it is really shameful that what is now quite a reasonable article was nearly deleted through utter failure to conduct basic checks for sources. An article being poor does not justify its deletion. AusLondonder (talk) 10:22, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I notice the Centre is only mentioned in many of them. DGG ( talk ) 19:03, 26 August 2015 (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.