Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Committee for a Free Britain

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 keep. John254 18:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Committee for a Free Britain

Committee for a Free Britain (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Formerly a rather vainglorious article from what seem to be the same anonymous editors who also puffed other far-right topics of no real significance outside of a tiny minority of disaffected Tories (e.g. Gregory Lauder-Frost and the Western Goals Institute). Cleaned by SandyDancer, but on reviewing the sources I find that all are essentially the group itself (its publications, its founder or a single interview with its founder), with the exception of a single story in City Limits about one party the group organised. Gets 20 unique Googles outside Wikipedia, and Wikipedia and mirrors account for more than half of all the hits overall. Nothing on Factiva. Group appears to have been active for less than five years, which is probably why. Whether Hart is notable I would not like to say, but I'd say this group was of no demonstrable significance. Guy (Help!) 18:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. I do have a fuzzy memory of the Committee for a Free Britain and the controversy over the Calero visit. Though they seem to have left a small webprint, the pre-1994 era often has sporadic coverage. I'm also willing to accept lower Ghits for a UK than a US organization, due to the UK's smaller population. --Groggy Dice T|C 07:21, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

• Hey, I live in England, you know, and I've no memory at all of this lot - and this was a time when I was politically active, a regular on the Radio 4 letters slots (worked with John Humphrys' ex-wife) and active on the UK Politics forums, I still have an archive of my long discussing with Vincent Hanna somewhere. Honestly, I can't find any evidence that this group had any significance outside the minds of its members. Guy (Help!) 11:03, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, notable enough. --Duke of Duchess Street 03:16, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 08:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep I'd forgotten this group's name, but certainly remember their activities. Though a small organisation, its influence was very real. The named members are certainly significant, the campaigns they started or influenced were not minor, the money behind them was very real. Too much in there about Perle - he wasn't a member - but that they could get him to support is in itself an indication of their importance. So there's not much on Google. So what? It predates Google. I'm surprised that Guy never heard of them (or the campaigns they mounted) but perhaps the give away is that he was a regular on the Radio 4 letters slot - what does that mean???? (He wrote letters to Radio 4????) Emeraude 11:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, Torie opinion forming power group, long forgotten except by historians ... yet notable Alf photoman 17:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Whether or not the nominator has heard of this group is irrelevant. The article is verifiable and cites reliable sources. While it may be defunct, it did have a degree of notability (or notoriety) in its time. Agent 86 18:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - ah yes, I'd forgotten them... It's useful to find an article about them. Snalwibma 22:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as an example of their time, and as a "grandparent" article for later groups. -- Simon Cursitor 07:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep but make it better, I just made an edit to the page, it can be improved, but it is a keep page Pernambuco 00:57, 7 January 2007 (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.