Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ResPublica

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 no consensus. There are reasonable arguments on both sides, but discounting the last comment in the AfD (no reasoning given), with 3 deletes and 3 Keeps there is clearly no consensus either way. Black Kite (t) (c) 06:48, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ResPublica

[edit]
ResPublica (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

"Think Tank" that fails WP:ORG, no significant coverage, what little coverage there is (see the creators list on the Talk page) is mostly of the form "Phillip Bond, Director of" . Codf1977 (talk) 13:10, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - (I'm the article's creator - no wp:COI). Not just any old think tank, but "a leading think tank". The latter is a direct quote from the BBC presenter Stephen Sackur, & taken from (5 mins 20" into) his HARDtalk TV program interview with Phillip Blond of ResPublica.
Moreover, David Cameron took time out to attend & speak at ResPublica's launch, and there are 5 UK MPs on ResPublica's advisory board. I don't think the latter should be dismissed as run-of-the-mill inherited notability, as the 6 notable people share many aspects of the same essential professional field as the organsisation in the article.
Also, ResPublica has had some mentions by name in several UK national newspapers. Trafford09 (talk) 14:03, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect that the "a leading think tank" quote was given to the BBC presenter Stephen Sackur by Phillip Blond or his staff, as a way of self promotion. The reason why I think that is, according to the BBC site this program went out at 11:30pm on Tuesday 20th October 2009, however over a month later Simon Hoggarts in The Guardian comments on going to the Respublica Launch - so I have to ask how can this organisation be "a leading think tank" if it has not yet launched ? Codf1977 (talk) 15:42, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A less-conspiratorial theory is that ResPublica was conceived & spoken about months before their Official Launch event. The latter surely required the funds & preparation necessary to book a large venue, & attract an audience of 300 people with busy diaries, and the attendance of Mr. Cameron. Please see the links here, dated 2 Aug 2009. I see no cause to question the professional integrity of either Stephen Sackur or the HARDtalk staff. Trafford09 (talk) 16:43, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If it was there seems to be a lack of significant coverage. Codf1977 (talk) 21:38, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Borderline GNG, but clearly it exists, and I suspect it could be sourced.  Chzz  ►  20:37, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Existence doesn't imply notability, and notability is not inherited. Just because notable people sit on the board of advisors does not automatically make the organization notable. I don't see much coverage of what the think tank has actually accomplished in order to make the organization itself notable. All of the sources in this article about the members of the organization, not about anything that the organization has actually done. If that is all the coverage that can be found, then at best this article should be merged among the articles for its notable members. SnottyWong babble 21:48, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Although notability is not inherited, surely this is not a normal inheritance. If David Beckham bought a hotel, that hotel would not become notable. But in this case, we're taliking about a UK political think tank, and on its advisory board sits Oliver Letwin, who's the Minister of State at the Cabinet Office, Chairman of the Conservative Research Department and Chairman of the Conservative Party's Policy Review, and sits on Cabinet meetings. That's kinda related to the article's subject. --Trafford09 (talk) 08:09, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Inheritance is Inheritance, what is needed is the significant coverage of what ResPublica has done.Codf1977 (talk) 08:33, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Glance through the dozens of summaries that appear when Google news search is used for "ResPublica" AND "think tank".[1] Seems notable to me. They quote from them at times, and talk about their agenda to break up the four big supermarkets. Dream Focus 03:31, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I assume you mean this article - more about what Philip Blond said than ResPublica - Only mentions ResPublica twice once to confirm that Philip Blond was talking at the ResPublica launch and secondly to report that a spokesperson for ResPublica expanded on what Philip Blond had said. Codf1977 (talk) 05:58, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And the others, including the one after that which is titled "Phillip Blond: Conservatives should break up big supermarkets" from the Telegraph.co.uk. Look at the ones with the word "supermarket" in them. Dream Focus 06:35, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did read that one, and that one is even less about ResPublica - as far as I can see this is a new "think tank" desperate for the oxygen of publicity and trying to do so by association (I am NOT saying that this WP article is a part of that). None of the refs shown address the subject of ResPublica and what it has done in anything approaching the significant way as mentioned in the WP:GNG or WP:ORG. Codf1977 (talk) 08:33, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But surely this is catch 22. You say that ResPublica doesn't get coverage just because Newsnight, HARDtalk etc. always interview its founder/director. If they approach, interview & quote him, and whilst doing so, speak the words "think tank, ResPublica" & also display that on-screen, isn't that still a reference to ResPublica? You're saying that a director can't represent a body, or isn't doing so whenever he is given on-screen recognition for doing so? --Trafford09 (talk) 08:46, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Moreover, are you saying that, no matter how many thousands of people read about ResPublica in UK newspapers, or see it on TV, they're not entitled to look it up on our encyclopedia, to find out more information on the topic? (Which is precisely how I came to be involved in any of this, having no wp:COI.) --Trafford09 (talk) 08:55, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am not saying anything - the consensus guidelines layout what constitutes a notiable organisation and as of yet none of those advocating keeping the article have been able to provide prove of significant coverage only mentions. Codf1977 (talk) 10:28, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Identifying a reliable source which deals non-trivially with the subject takes a bit more work than finding an interview which contains the words "think tank" and "ResPublica". Just because those two words appear in the same article doesn't mean that this source establishes notability. Again, what have they done? What have they accomplished? So far all I can tell is that they have talked about some supermarket chain. Remember, existence doesn't imply notability, so finding sources which simply prove that ResPublica exists are not helping the case to keep this article. SnottyWong gab 17:06, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Would you mind listing them ? Codf1977 (talk) 10:28, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A very quick search for recent press coverage turns up the following, all of which are on the subject of ResPublica rather than just mentioning them in the context of a wider piece. I've also not included some smaller reportage about their launches and their pamphlets:
  • John Harris, "The man who wrote Cameron's mood music" (Saturday Interview), The Guardian, 8 August 2009, p. 28
  • Camilla Long, "The red under Cameron's bed", Sunday Times, 18 October 2009, p. 5
  • "Blond shakes up the Tories", Liverpool Echo, 23 October 2009, p. 8
  • Andy McSmith, "The rise and rise of Cameron's philosopher-king", The Independent, 25 November 2009, p. 14
  • Martin Ivens, "Cameron's tactical Blond moment", Sunday Times, 29 November 2009, p. 19
  • Dominic Lawson, "The man who wrote Dave's bible", Sunday Times, 28 March 28 2010, p. 39
  • James Delingpole, "Purple with rage about a Red Tory", Mail on Sunday, 11 April 2010, p. 13
And I gave up as the election campaign started. There are not many book references because the think tank is so relatively new. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:40, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would have to disagree
so still no significant coverage of ResPublica, only mentions along side Phillip Blond. Codf1977 (talk) 12:27, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree with your contention that a reference to ResPublica in the context of a profile of Philip Blond personally means that it does not count as source about ResPublica. It would not be right to allow the fact that media profiles concentrate on personalities to distract us from the fact that both Blond personally and ResPublica as an organisation are considered notable. In any case, dispute over sources ought not to take place in threaded discussions in an AfD, and contributors to an AfD discussion ought to be free to state their views without being interrogated on whether they are justified in holding them. Sam Blacketer (talk) 13:41, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am not interrogating you, you stated that multiple independent sources exited, and as my nomination was based on the fact I don't think they exist, if they do exist and are significant ("Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so 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. - taken from WP:GNG) then it would be grounds for me to withdraw my nomination. Codf1977 (talk) 14:47, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • BBC links: As ResPublica is a UK think tank, I searched the BBC for news of it here, and the first news item it that this search brought up is:
Cameron backs Phillip Blond's 'Red Tory' think tank, including the view of Ross Hawkins - BBC Political correspondent - that "both Conservatives and their opponents will study the output of Phillip Blond's new think tank.".
Is this news item a better wp:RS, and should we seek more & similar? --Trafford09 (talk) 12:46, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) It is a good source, we know it exists, but what has is done since then, the only coverage is centred around Philip Blond and Cameron attending it's launch - there does not appear to be any coverage of ResPublica significant or otherwise since the launch back in November. I still think it should be deleted or best a redirect to Phillip Blond. Codf1977 (talk) 12:54, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Or to put it another way - what output have they (both Conservatives and their opponents) had to study ? Codf1977 (talk) 12:58, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No coverage of ResPublica - significant or otherwise - since November?
Today: Wednesday 14th April reminded readers of ResPublica, and
The Full Election story: 26 April found ResPublica noteworthy, even on a busy election night.
It seems that, in the UK, ResPublica have not disappeared off the political radar. --Trafford09 (talk) 13:38, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again these are mentions in relation to Phillip Blond - absolutely NOT coverage of ResPublica !!!
Where is the coverage on the big policy announcements or recommendations in the last 8 months ? Have they even made any? What has this think tank actually achieved other than getting the then leader of the operation to the launch event for 5 mins. Codf1977 (talk) 13:46, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So, when the BBC in April wrote: "Phillip Blond, from the think tank Respublica, says ...", and "Phillip Blond, director of independent public policy think-tank ResPublica", they were adding non-relevant information by mentioning the think tank? Akin to saying he's in a local tiddlywinks team? No, I think the BBC is independent and experienced enough to present readers with relevant information. It's perfectly clear, to me, that when a director of a think tank is quoted about politics, then - unless he is careful to first stress that he's speaking in a personal capacity - he's speaking for and representing the think tank - hence the BBC's quite correct references to ResPublica. To conveniently dismisss anything Blond as non-ResPublica seems quite perverse. Trafford09 (talk) 14:22, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well yes it is non-relevant for determining is ResPublica notable in it's own right; the fact you were unable to answer the other questions I raised should show you what I mean - perhaps if I refrase the question - "What is ResPublica notable for doing ?" Codf1977 (talk) 14:33, 25 June 2010 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/ResPublica&oldid=1138295643"