Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moggmentum: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 08:08, 10 September 2017

Moggmentum

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

A very poorly-written, poorly-sourced embarrassment to an encyclopedia. PROD tag removed by creator with bad-faith rationale of "Just because it doesn't subscribe to your ideology doesn't mean it should be removed." Fails WP:GNG - sourcing is rubbish such as Breitbart ("The news site Breitbart London, which is especially popular with conservative grassroots in the online sphere, was the first major media to back Moggmentum...publishing the first serious case for Prime Minister Rees-Mogg article"), Instagram and The Sun. Most of the credible sources mention Rees-Mogg in passing regarding the Conservative leadership (which he has said himself he is not seeking). Violation of WP:NOTNEWS ("Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion") - this is the worst kind of silly season waffle. Fails WP:NPOV with lines such as "LGBT activists hijacking #Moggmentum by posting homoerotic gifs." In short, burn it with fire. AusLondonder (talk) 17:43, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder (talk) 17:47, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder (talk) 17:49, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder (talk) 17:49, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is quite notable as the subject is now topping polls as a plausible contender to be the next Conservative leader. The enthusiasm and campaigning for him is comparable with Milifandom, Momentum (organisation) and similar movements in other countries like The People for Bernie Sanders. Andrew D. (talk) 18:27, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't even a vacancy in the leadership and he has played down the likelihood of him standing if there was. This is crystal ball stuff. AusLondonder (talk) 19:26, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources used include: BBC News, The Guardian, ITV News etc therefore I do not agree that the "sourcing is rubbish". The story may blow over and the social media become less prominent once the "silly season" is over, however it has gained enough attention to meet GNG as the "topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".— Rod ^talk 18:38, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources seem fine, (BBC, ITV, etc.), the article seems fine, it's attracting moderate media attention, and, if Theresa May were to resign, he would be a serious contender. In fact, I agree to both the above. Pianoguysfan^talktome 20:13, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Jacob Rees-Mogg (or Delete). I agree with the nominator that this is silly-season, speculative fluff; it's a media meme created by bored journalists, not (yet) a genuinely notable political movement. Admittedly, Milifandom has an article, which is almost as silly; but one unnecessary article on a transient political meme doesn't justify another. (The odd thing is that Corbynmania, which is more significant than either of those, doesn't have an article.) Anyway, there's no valuable content here that can't be merged into Jacob Rees-Mogg. Robofish (talk) 22:36, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep its notable and well sourced. I can not understand how having an article on a notable phenomenon can ever be an "embarrassment to an encyclopedia". Also your cry to "burn it with fire", akin to electronic book burning a staple of oppression and censorship I find offensive, no books electronic or otherwise should ever be 'burned'. WP is WP:NOTCENSORED and therefore it is only a good thing for it to continue with this page which documents the rise of Moggmentum, which has helped catapult Jacob Rees-Mogg to now become the Conservative front runner for replacing Theresa May. I also disagree with Robofish that it should be merged into Rees-Mogg's own article as this page is about an independent grassroots movement not about Jacob Rees-Mogg himself. This is why these pages exist, as this is not unique, just like the others (Milifandom, Momentum (organisation), Corbynmania and The People for Bernie Sanders) they are about the movement and the followers, not the person they follow. ThinkingTwice ^{contribs | talk} 08:07, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 13: / Line 13: @@
 *'''Keep''' The sources seem fine, (BBC, ITV, etc.), the article seems fine, it's attracting moderate media attention, and, if [[Theresa May]] were to resign, he would be a serious contender. In fact, I agree to both the above. [[User:Pianoguysfan|<font color="red">'''Pianoguysfan'''</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Pianoguysfan|<font color="green">''talktome''</font>]]</sup> 20:13, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
 *'''Merge''' to [[Jacob Rees-Mogg]] (or '''Delete'''). I agree with the nominator that this is silly-season, speculative fluff; it's a media meme created by bored journalists, not (yet) a genuinely notable political movement. Admittedly, [[Milifandom]] has an article, which is almost as silly; but one unnecessary article on a transient political meme doesn't justify another. (The odd thing is that [[Corbynmania]], which is more significant than either of those, doesn't have an article.) Anyway, there's no valuable content here that can't be merged into [[Jacob Rees-Mogg]]. [[User:Robofish|Robofish]] ([[User talk:Robofish|talk]]) 22:36, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
+*'''Keep''' its notable and well sourced. I can not understand how having an article on a notable phenomenon can ever be an "embarrassment to an encyclopedia". Also your cry to "burn it with fire", akin to electronic [[book burning]] a staple of oppression and censorship I find offensive, no books electronic or otherwise should ever be 'burned'. WP is [[WP:NOTCENSORED]] and therefore it is only a good thing for it to continue with this page which documents the rise of Moggmentum, which has helped catapult Jacob Rees-Mogg to now become the Conservative front runner for replacing Theresa May. I also disagree with Robofish that it should be merged into Rees-Mogg's own article as this page is about an independent grassroots movement not about Jacob Rees-Mogg himself. This is why these pages exist, as this is not unique, just like the others ([[Milifandom]], [[Momentum (organisation)]], [[Corbynmania]] and [[The People for Bernie Sanders]]) they are about the movement and the followers, not the person they follow. [[User:ThinkingTwice|<font color="darkgreen" face="comic sans ms">'''ThinkingTwice'''</font>]] <sup>''[[Special:Contributions/ThinkingTwice|contribs]] &#124; [[User talk:ThinkingTwice|talk]]''</sup> 08:07, 10 September 2017 (UTC)