Talk:George Freeman (politician)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on George Freeman (politician). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150521052529/http://www.georgefreeman.co.uk/content/winning-grassroot-diplomat-award-2015-0 to http://www.georgefreeman.co.uk/content/winning-grassroot-diplomat-award-2015-0
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150511063814/http://www.georgefreeman.co.uk:80/biog to http://www.georgefreeman.co.uk/biog

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:40, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I propose that 2020 group be merged into George Freeman (politician). I was looking to build up the 2020 group article, but came into difficulty. In the article, we have a lot of primary sources, but also two Channel 4 blogs by Michael Crick (2), a Political Scrapbook blogpost. I'm not sure Political Scrapbook really meets the description in WP:NEWSBLOG as a reliable source, and two (fairly reliable) blogposts don't contribute a great deal towards the WP:GNG.

The other coverage I can find consists of a blogpost by the Freeman that mentions it in passing (which is primary and non-significant), some material about a policy they proposed, with some material about the group in a quote from Freeman (which is primary and non-significant), a trivial mention in a profile of Freeman, a trivial mention in a Resource Magazine article, a mention in a Food column (at two paragraphs, longer than anything else, but doesn't tell us much to build an article from), a passing mention in a Staggers blogpost by Freeman, a mention of the group entirely as it relates to Freeman, another of the same, a mention in a speech, another mention as context for Freeman, another trivial mention, some mention in a section that's mainly about Freeman, another trivial mention, a mention in a piece about Greg Barker, another trivial mention, and a mention of the group as it relates to Greg Barker.

A lot of the coverage relates to George Freeman more than anyone else, and whilst I really don't think there's enough coverage to write an article about, or to pass the GNG. There is, however, enough material for a paragraph in Freeman's article, with a redirect to it. And from 2020 Conservatives, which is actually the name of the group.

In terms of the policy reasons for merger, the strongest is 3: Text. The 2020 group page is very short and there is not enough material to expand it, and there is no reason to believe there will be a lot of new material coming any time soon. I think the amount of coverage given to the 2020 Conservatives as they relate to Freeman as a proportion of all of its coverage makes it pretty clear they aren't discrete subjects. Ralbegen (talk) 21:29, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

I started this article up about a group in the 2010 intake who seemed to be growing in influence and were likely to be around a long time (I think it was after an article about them on a Radio 4 politics programme). Their appeal across the party was notable. I think it's safe to say that they have not lived up to what promised to be some notability. JASpencer (talk) 22:24, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose merge. I found the following additional sources: Financial Times, October 2011; Spectator, February 2014; Independent, February 2014. I think these, in addition to the two Michael Crick pieces currently in the article, are sufficient to satisfy WP:GNG and WP:ORG. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 15:14, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

@Arms & Hearts: There are definitely multiple sources, though both the Crick pieces and the Spectator are news blogs. I do think, though, that the sum total we learn about the 2020 Conservatives isn't enough to write a decent article. Given the sources you've provided I'm less certain it would meet deletion criteria but I still think it meets merge criteria and would sit more comfortably in this article. If you still disagree, I'm happy to close the discussion as no consensus and remove the tags. Ralbegen (talk) 23:06, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Merge proposals tend to be quite slow-moving processes in my experience, so it might be best to leave this open a while longer and see if anyone else weighs in. If you'd like to take that approach then a request for input at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom and perhaps Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Conservatism could be appropriate. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 23:20, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Content is copied from subject's personal website.

The main text content of this article appears to be copied from George Freeman's personal website.

At the very least it's hugely biased and an infringement of copyright. Although I doubt the copyright holder in this case will be complaining.

88.109.168.107 (talk) 15:50, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

References