Jump to content

Talk:Scottish Defence League

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Need for this article

[edit]

I have started writing this article as I felt it was inappropriate for a search for 'Scottish Defence League' to lead to nothing more than a redirect to English Defence League. I therefore object to the proposal for deletion and will remove the tag once I finish this post. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 15:31, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Every SDL demonstration has had EDL flags plus mosty EDL members. SDL mostly consists of an EDL base. If we create SDL we will also hae to create NDL (norwegian defence league), DDL (danish defence league), WDL (welsh defence league), FDL (french defence league), GDL (german defence league) etc. I think a redirect to EDL is sufficient. The rticle clearly violates WP:GNG. Pass a Method talk 15:38, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why will we have to create NDL (norwegian defence league), DDL (danish defence league), FDL (french defence league), GDL (german defence league) etc, as you claim? None of these have even been created as redirect articles to English Defence League, and none are mentioned in the article, English Defence League. I completely disagree that the article clearly violates WP:GNG, as you claim. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 15:51, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They are actually mentioned in the international links section. There is also a SDL Sikh defence League. there is also a gay defence league. NDL norwegian defence League. There is also a MDL Muslim defence league. Are we going to create all of these spinofs? I will revert you to aoid this slippery slope. Pass a Method talk 15:59, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All your additions should go to the EDL demonstrations article Pass a Method talk 16:04, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I don't see any reference to NDL (norwegian defence league), DDL (danish defence league), FDL (french defence league) or GDL (german defence league) anywhere in the English Defence League article. I'll comment further below your further comment. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 17:06, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In the internation section, "The EDL has European ties in the Netherlands, France, Denmark and Sweden, with supporters joining and hosting EDL demonstrators."
By the way, at least 3 people think this article should be redirected. Pass a Method talk 17:11, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Where have they indicated that? Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 17:31, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SDL

[edit]

Im getting annoyed now coz Fishiehelper doesn't get it. There are several offshoots of EDL including Sikh division, Gay division, Muslim division, Norwegian division, etx. et. Why does Scotland division get special status with its own article?? To avoid hypocrisy, Fishie should create an article for all the other offshoots too! Im getting annoyed now. Pass a Method talk 16:26, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If an offshoot is within the same country, then an article about that country's organisation could easily have a subsection within that article. But are you really saying that if a danish defence league grows and becomes active in Denmark, that there should not be a separate article about that organisation just because it began as an offshoot? If I can find evidence of 'defence leagues' being established in other countries - whether or not they begin live as an offshoot - I would be happy to create articles for them too. If we ended up with several articles, we could create a template to make it easier for readers to see the associated articles. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 17:12, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've had a search using google and can't find any news reports of protests or marches involving any 'defence leagues' in Norway, Sweden, France or Germany. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 17:19, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The question of the other offshoots is completely irrelevant here. If You care them and believe them notable, go ahead and write those articles. If You think this article violates any Wikipedia policy, You should prove it for this article, not for some other. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:47, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish Defence League either meets Wikipedia:Notability requirements or it doesn't. That's the only criteria. A quick look in google suggests that it doesn't pass the test. Other divisions may or may not pass the test but that isn't relevant to whether this one does. Also, you are both edit warring and 3 reverts isn't an entitlement. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:47, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest WP:AFD. It will give the clean consensus on whether the SDL meets the notability requirements and thus resolve this dispute automatically. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:49, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sean.hoyland, the Scottish Defence League article now has 10 difference references from reliable, independent, secondary sources - the BBC, quality newspapers and local newspapers. The emergence of the group has caused concern and debate to a number of organisations including the STUC, several local councils and police boards. Having read the Wikipedia:Notability guidelines, I can't see how this article could fail the notability test. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 18:26, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is not with Your opinion about the SDL's notability, but about the great amount of other, who don't believe it. You should either improve the article (with referencing the additional material) or route the article through AfD to have the notability of the article properly proved, so that the other editors wouldn't question it any more. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:47, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's not the citation count that matters, it's the depth of coverage. You need to be able to demonstrate that there's been substantial coverage of the SDL as a topic in itself i.e. articles that discuss SDL in depth rather than just say things like they did this or that, they're an offshoot of the English Defence League etc. I don't think you've done that yet. Maybe there are some in depth articles about the SDL out there somewhere that you will find, but right now they're absent. The default is to redirect in the meantime. All of the material you have produced can still be used elsewhere or here again once notability is established. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:56, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest if you think its not notable and want to delete the article you WP:AFD it or WP:PROD it and see what happens - It seems to rise above the grass cutting notability of WP:GNG to me. The articles only just been created - its cited, I suggest you allow it a few days to develop. Off2riorob (talk) 18:44, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is this article is a slippery slope which will result in several other articles being created, such as Norweigan defence league, Swedish defence league, Gay defence league. etc. It will be much simpler to maintain these articles if there was only 1 article to maintain. instead of dozens of non-notable articles.Pass a Method talk 19:26, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
These concerns (though are reasonable) do not belong here. It's a talk page of a single article about SDL, which is either notable on its own or isn't notable and thus should be deleted. WP:AFD is the right place to resolve such issues. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 19:39, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A compromise?

[edit]

Hi all. Is it possible that a compromise can meet the objectives of both sides here? Editors clearly feel strongly that there should only be one article - the English Defence League article - as the SDL is an offshoot of the EDL, and to prevent a growing number of 'offshoot' articles. From my perspective, I would want any reader that is searching for 'Scottish Defence League' to be able to go straight to the key information being sought. Could I suggest that a compromise that meets both objectives would be to have the detail from what I have added to the Scottish Defence League article placed in a separate subsection within the English Defence League article and then 'Scottish Defence League' could be redirected straight to that subsection. Any thoughts? Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 20:51, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A section Offshoots with subsection about SDL sounds good to me. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 21:45, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now notable enough for its own article?

[edit]

The SDL, as vile as it is, may well be an of-shoot of the EDL, but it is obviously important enough within Scotland to get routine couverage in the BBC, and have the deputy first minister, and other Scottish political leaders commenting on it, and potesting against it.

See this BBC article, this week. [1]. Nicola Sturgeon, Johann Lamont, Ruth Davidson and Willie Rennie, Patrick Harvie, the Scottish Council of Jewish Communities, the Muslim Council of Scotland and the Church of Scotland have all signed a protest to Glasgow Council to ban its march. That's pretty unusual. Connected to that BBC article are another three items on the group on BBC. See http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-14861594 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-14591243 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/edinburgh_and_east/8525939.stm

I can't, in light of this recent coverage, understand why Wikipedia doesn't want to have a short article here.--Jenny Longlegs (talk) 16:05, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, if no one wants to discuss this, I shall restore the article.--Jenny Longlegs (talk) 23:20, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
One march? Lets see if there is any other activity. For the moment I suggest a note on EDL and maybe add to list of demonstrations ----Snowded TALK 18:19, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't about one march (although look again there's been several). This organisation has had multiple high-profile mentions in mainstream media, especially the BBC (with no mention of the EDL), it has attracted comment and specific objections from the deputy first minister of Scotland and the leaders of all major particles. You may not think this group is important, but reliable sources and major politicians do. That makes it notable by wikipedia's standards. This just seems a case of people not liking it.--Jenny Longlegs (talk) 21:56, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see it from the evidence so far, but I am open to a separate article if the case is made. Please list references and the mean time stop edit warring, WP:BRD applies ----Snowded TALK 22:33, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, people reverting me without discussion - when that's what I asked for are the ones edit-waring. Multiple sources are on the article, and I've given the source above. Can you explain why multiple reliable sources featuring this organisations, and comments from major politicians doesn't satisfy the notablility requirements?--Jenny Longlegs (talk) 23:05, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Scottish_Defence_League&oldid=1256554086"