Talk:Change UK

Delete Article?

Since Change UK is now a de-facto non entity, does it even merit an article in Wikipedia? Hanoi Road (talk) 21:23, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

@Hanoi Road: Generally, Notability is not temporary. If you think you could make a good arguement that it has not received enough sustaining coverage over a sufficient period of time, then you are welcome to nominate the article for deletion. Cheers, –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 22:13, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough.

I guess it's simply notable for being a failure that lasted five minutes, but that's enough to qualify, I suppose. Hanoi Road (talk) 23:35, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

@Hanoi Road: There's no need to be a WP:POV warrior. If you have an issue regarding Wikipedia policy on notability, take it to the WP:VILLAGEPUMP. Domeditrix (talk) 09:59, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

There's plenty of articles about defunct political parties in Wikipedia. So that's no reason to delete the article. Also, Change UK more than passed the threshold for notability due its heavy media coverage and the fact it had representation in the House of Commons.--Autospark (talk) 17:03, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Oppose, party is a significant if small part of UK political history, as shown by the coverage. Jonpatterns (talk) 20:45, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Oppose. The party had MPs and, thus, is definitely relevant. --Checco (talk) 21:01, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Oppose: Party had MPs and significant media coverage so meets our notability guidelines. This is Paul (talk) 21:52, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

As a registered party at one significant period, it is of historic record, even if it currently is or was a 'non-entity' 86.22.43.187 (talk) 00:35, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

• Change UK Logo 2.png (discussion)
• The Independent Group Logo.png (discussion)

Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:06, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

GA Review

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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Change UK/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: DimensionalFusion (talk · contribs) 17:00, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

This article's contents look pretty interesting, and off the bat I don't see any reason to quickfail the article, so I'll get right into it. If you have any questions or comments,feel free to leave a comment here or my talk page, either's fine! —DimensionalFusion (talk) 17:00, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for doing the review, appreciate it! I've fixed the was > were issue. As for the lead, I really enjoy it, not overly long, interesting and to the point. I'm happy to trim if you insist and also any suggestions would be welcome on doing that. I do think it matchs MoS as its three paragraphs in an article of 23,965 characters but I could be looking in the wrong place so feel free to correct me. Thank you again! :) Lankyant (talk) 21:03, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

@DimensionalFusion just tagging you so you see it. Lankyant (talk) 10:09, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Prose is mostly clear and concise
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Article mostly complies with MoS in terms on layout and etc.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Article provides references to all sources using references section and inline citations (Also: 143 citations? Wow!)
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Inline citations follow WP:RS Self check: 7, 24, 35, 50, 55, 68, 90, 100, 103, 121, 128, 135, 148 √
	2c. it contains no original research.	Article does not contain any original research
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Article does not contain any copyright violations
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Article addresses main aspects of the topic in accordance with Wikipedia:Out of scope
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Article does no stray into unnessesary detail
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Article does not give any undue weight to any particular viewpoints
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No recent edit warring as far as I can tell
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Images are appropriately tagged with copyright status
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Images are appropriately captioned
	7. Overall assessment.	Article meets GA standards. On an unrelated note: great read, learnt a lot

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.

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Bruxton (talk) 22:26, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that Change UK had eleven elected Members of Parliament despite never actually winning an election? Source:
  • Reviewed:

Improved to Good Article status by Lankyant (talk). Self-nominated at 19:00, 3 July 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Change UK; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

• New enough (submitted on same day as GA); lengthy (24,018 characters); well sourced; neutrally written. No apparent copyvio, and spot check on Earwig matches turn up appropriately cited direct quotes only. QPQ is not needed, as this is only the nominator's fifth DYK. Hook is interesting and checks out per the source provided, and is also explained in the article. Nice work. Cielquiparle (talk) 14:07, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

@Cielquiparle and Lankyant: Hello, I am unable to find the hook stated and cited in our article. Can you point me to it? Bruxton (talk) 01:01, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

@Bruxton: If you read the "Formation" section, it explains how the seven plus four elected MPs joined the party initially, with citations. (And if you read the rest of the article, you find out they never did win any election.) Cielquiparle (talk) 07:31, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

@Cielquiparle: Thank you, for me, it was difficult to piece it together. Bruxton (talk) 13:41, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

References