Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Westminster Declaration

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 redirect‎ to Westminster 2010: Declaration of Christian Conscience. There's a consensus that this declaration is not notable. Most of the keep !votes were flat assertions of importance or assertions of inherited notability, without reference to sources or notability guidelines, so I discarded those comments. Looking at the remaining comments, a supermajority of commenters found the sourcing inadequate to show notability.

I'm redirecting to Westminster 2010: Declaration of Christian Conscience to restore the status quo ante, and to keep the page history if people want to merge some content to Internet censorship or elsewhere as suggested. This redirection is not meant to prevent people from retargeting the redirect or converting the page to a DAB page as suggested by Cielquiparle. Galobtter (talk) 01:36, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Westminster Declaration[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Westminster Declaration (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems to fail to meet GNG, no significant coverage in reliable sources. Seems to fail to meet Event notability guidelines: (1) Almost certainly no enduring historical significance (2) No impact and not analyzed in sources, there is basically no coverage of this and it goes to no depth at all, at best summarizing the declaration. Phiarc (talk) 21:47, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Westminster Declaration
  • Keep. The article is about a trend whereby platform administrators decide what counts as newsworthy and delete ideas and opinions that are deemed unworthy, unimportant or false based on their subjective opinion. This is what is happening here: an article is appointed for cancellation even though it had a list of notable signatories and have been covered by Western press. I wonder why this article in particular is singled out for deletion when much less notable declarations and less covered news or personalities warrant a page. --2A02:AB88:C88:B400:916:FA22:69F4:B450 (talk) 19:44, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The lack of coverage beyond the outlets that chose to essentially copy-and-paste what is written in the original means that the article unavoidably fails two of our three core content policies. One of which cannot be waived by consensus. The keep !votes focusing on WP:ITSIMPORTANT merely underscore this fact. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:42, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Original
  • I am distinctly unimpressed at the suggestion that having standards is equal to censorship (less than surprised, but) and very tempted to simply drop a WP:OMGWTFBBQ here and leave. (NOTNEWS! BREAKING? PRIMARY. NOTINHERITED! RGW) I will however point out that while it's no doubt very unfair, fundamentally Wikipedia's coverage is limited by the editorial choices of respected mainstream publications with, specifically, independent, secondary coverage required to assess relative weight. It is, in a word, if that it be divorced from its political connotations, a very conservative philosophy, in the sense of "adherence to the status quo"; and while we are permitted radical action in many respects (WP:BOLD, WP:IAR) the basis of our core content policies is not one of them. So:
    • Commenters wishing to decry the censorship taking in this very place are welcome to read the essay Wikipedia:Free speech and policy of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not.
      • Wikipedia is not, for example, a journal club, or a place to discuss what we learnt in class today. That may well fall into the scope of another project, and "important background information" might be, if verifiably considered so by RS, included in the appropriate article. A sentence or so might even find its way (assuming due weight) onto a hypothetical article on the assertion of political bias in content moderation, or something similar (though while there is some volume of primary research on this topic, it is less clear that there are any systematic reviews of the available literature). That does not make the topic suitable for a standalone encyclopedic article. If your class reliably publishes content from those discussions, then we're talking. (Talking, in this case, does not imply automatic acceptance, but it does mean the start of an argument can be made)
      • Notability is not inherited from the identities of its signatories. An encyclopedia article needs to be beyond a list of the people who have signed something, republished something, or have associated themselves with something. I'm sure The Future of Free Speech is very notable, but them announcing some specific notable person signing and publishing nothing else, other than the original text (while presumably verifying that specific fact) does not let us write anything. Taibbi, Shellenberger might be themselves notable, but what is there to write? The Times and Die Welt would be fine if they actually wrote much beyond copying and pasting the original text of the declaration. They don't. What are we left with, opinion pieces?
  • Without something secondary we can state in wikivoice, we won't have an article here, we would have a collection of context-free information; and make no mistake, Considering the high profile of the signatories, media coverage on the declaration was noticeably low is not something we can state in wikivoice. No doubt it is very unfair for those being censored that we're not allowed to point out the WP:TRUTH that it is being suppressed here. Nor simply state the claims therein in wikivoice as fact. Without significant coverage in reliable, secondary, independent sources, there will not be an article because there cannot be an article. Delete. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:16, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The declaration covers a significant matter with potentially large impact on most of the population. It was signed by a substantial number of some of the world's best known academics and intellectuals. And it had significant coverage by some major mainstream media companies, even though it had explicitly criticized them.
    Keep. --Geek3 (talk) 14:22, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:28, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Notable declaration signed by a substantial number of notable people. It's not surprise that much of the media wouldn't be keen to cover something which directly criticizes their business. In any case, it has received some coverage from "reliable" sources (an increasingly questionable terminology for many of them, which is the whole point). HappyWanderer15 (talk) 17:04, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Includes notable personalities and is covered in reputable press - the proposal to delete this article proves why this must remain --2A02:AB88:C88:B400:916:FA22:69F4:B450 (talk) 19:34, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please just leave this in the list of old open AfDs for a few days, thanks. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:52, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Any particular reason why? This would be somewhat a departure from general procedure (which is close or relist once they appear there), so keen to hear the rationale for potentially IARing it. Daniel (talk) 23:47, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • I did notice that there are usually much fewer discussions at OAFD than there were a few years ago. I really don't think a relist is at all likely to bring in more participants in this case, I'm not sure I can clearly explain why (may need to think about this a little more), though I suppose there's also no guarantee leaving it without a relist will bring in participants either. There does appear to be two new comments but they appear to be from the same person. Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:48, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero Parlez Moi 12:52, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment from relisting admin: As a reminder to commenters that "quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy" controls the closure instead of vote counts

    Keeps are, so far, a wide variety of incredibly weak points such as "deleting is censorship", ITSIMPORTANT, ILIKEIT, notability is inherited from the signers, this will be important, and the media is covering this up. None of them will be given much weight. Please focus your discussion on how this topic meets or does not meet policy, such as the GNG or a SNG --Guerillero Parlez Moi 12:56, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Crouch, Swale has a point about the redirect, and I agree with it. Being reported on by Michael Shellenberger and Matt Taibbi really doesn't count as independent sources, since they wrote the thing in the first place, which throws out 193.169.154.232's argument. To quote a public statement of another of its authors, Andrew Lowenthal: [...] Michael Shellenberger, Matt Taibbi, and myself in London in June this year (hence "Westminster"). It was that group that developed the declaration [...] So let's look to see if an article can be properly written.

    Of course this won't have hit the history books or the political science journals yet, but I checked anyway. There's nothing. So there are no high quality sources from political experts to be had. That leaves only one pool of possible sources: news reporting. Well, the search engines all give me articles that are all marked as the same number of days old. Unsurprisingly, all of the sources cited in the article are all the same date, too, give or take timezone differences. It's 1 news cycle, with many of the stories largely identical and not providing much in-depth analysis; and then nothing at all. I independently found the article by The Telegraph, for example, and 9 paragraphs were it just quoting the document wholesale unfiltered, with the remainder being paraphasing. This indicates that there isn't much in the way of reliable independent good quality sourcing to be had, and what there is isn't in-depth and hasn't been followed up on.

    This doesn't meet the notability bar.

    Uncle G (talk) 15:06, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I think if there is a consensus that the 2023 one isn't notable then the redirect to the 2010 one should be restored and if deletion of the 2010 one is desired that one can be sent to AFD and this redirect then would be deleted as G8. If deletion of the redirect is then desired it can go to RFD or if disambiguation or retargeting is desired it can either be done boldly or through RFD. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:38, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - my guess is that it is WP:TOOSOON to determine if this is going to be a notable thing and we need to wait for the requisite independent reliable sources to cover it. It might take off or it might sink without trace - and it isn't our job to give it credibility or otherwise. JMWt (talk) 17:31, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because it has been reported by Die Welt, the New York Post, and the Telegraph. That's clearly sufficient coverage in itself. Yes, it's recent, and no one ever knows whether recent events will have lasting impact, but there has never been any consensus for a moratorium on recent events, so we can't go guessing about this one, but must judge it only on its present coverage. If it turns out to be an irrelevant flash-in-the-pan in six months' time, we can always discuss deletion again. Elemimele (talk) 17:49, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Telegraph is such a piss-poor source that it doesn't even tell us who wrote the document. I had to do primary research to find that out. The Telegraph also spends 3 paragraphs not even discussing the subject at all, but talking about itself and its prior reporting on something else, in addition to the paraphrasing and 9 paragraphs of outright bulk-quoting the document. Uncle G (talk) 18:17, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • So many sources covering issues highlighted in the Westminster Declaration are appearing at Substack. An article at Public on 11/10/23: Stanford Group Helped US Government Censor Covid Dissidents and Then Lied About It, New Documents Show (substack.com) cites Virality Project reports that confirm the government used a Stanford cut-out to censor true content about Covid vaccines, vindicating Twitter Files reporting.Kmccook (talk) 12:39, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Kmccook, you can't seriously tell me in your 7 thousand edits that you've never heard that substack blogs are not considered WP:RS and are not suitable for the purposes of WP:V. What are you even trying to say here? Alpha3031 (t • c) 06:55, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • I certainly know that one cannot use Substack in articles , but this is a discussion about the deletion of the article. I would expect reasoned sources about the topic can be considered in this discussion. The article at Public (co-sponsors of the Westminster Declaration) provides information about a report from the House Judiciary Committee: 𝑻𝙃𝑬 𝑾𝙀𝑨𝙋𝑶𝙉𝑰𝙕𝑨𝙏𝑰𝙊𝑵 𝑶𝙁 “𝑫𝙄𝑺𝙄𝑵𝙁𝑶𝙍𝑴𝘼𝑻𝙄𝑶𝙉” 𝑷𝙎𝑬𝙐𝑫𝙊-𝙀𝑿𝙋𝑬𝙍𝑻𝙎 𝘼𝑵𝘿 𝘽𝑼𝙍𝑬𝘼𝑼𝘾𝑹𝘼𝑻𝙎: 𝑯𝙊𝑾 𝑻𝙃𝑬 𝑭𝙀𝑫𝙀𝑹𝘼𝑳 𝑮𝙊𝑽𝙀𝑹𝙉𝑴𝙀𝑵𝙏 𝙋𝑨𝙍𝑻𝙉𝑬𝙍𝑬𝘿 𝙒𝑰𝙏𝑯 𝑼𝙉𝑰𝙑𝑬𝙍𝑺𝙄𝑻𝙄𝑬𝙎 𝙏𝑶 𝑪𝙀𝑵𝙎𝑶𝙍 𝘼𝑴𝙀𝑹𝙄𝑪𝘼𝑵𝙎’ 𝑷𝙊𝑳𝙄𝑻𝙄𝑪𝘼𝑳 𝑺𝙋𝑬𝙀𝑪𝙃.11/6/2023.https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/republicans-judiciary.house.gov/files/evo-media-document/EIP_Jira-Ticket-Staff-Report-11-7-23-Clean.pdf This report, whether you approve of the chairman or not, is in the public sphere and provides information about the topic.Kmccook (talk) 13:24, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • Kmccook, are you saying you want to write an article on the general topic? I don't think my approval (or lack thereof) of a politician would change the fact that that report does not mention the subject of this article (as far as I can tell) a single time. I was also aware that the substack article was non-independent, I just didn't feel the need to bring it up. You are correct that this is a discussion relates to the deletion of this article. For more information on the process, you may find the Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Typical format is around whether there are enough independent reliable sources writing things in their own words, so that we can write an article based on those words instead of our own interpretations. Alpha3031 (t • c) 18:02, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
          • User:Alpha3031,The Virality Project discussed in 𝑻𝙃𝑬 𝑾𝙀𝑨𝙋𝑶𝙉𝑰𝙕𝑨𝙏𝑰𝙊𝑵 𝑶𝙁 “𝑫𝙄𝑺𝙄𝑵𝙁𝑶𝙍𝑴𝘼𝑻𝙄𝑶𝙉” 𝑷𝙎𝑬𝙐𝑫𝙊-𝙀𝑿𝙋𝑬𝙍𝑻𝙎 𝘼𝑵𝘿 𝘽𝑼𝙍𝑬𝘼𝑼𝘾𝑹𝘼𝑻𝙎: 𝑯𝙊𝑾 𝑻𝙃𝑬 𝑭𝙀𝑫𝙀𝑹𝘼𝑳 𝑮𝙊𝑽𝙀𝑹𝙉𝑴𝙀𝑵𝙏 𝙋𝑨𝙍𝑻𝙉𝑬𝙍𝑬𝘿 𝙒𝑰𝙏𝑯 𝑼𝙉𝑰𝙑𝑬𝙍𝑺𝙄𝑻𝙄𝑬𝙎 𝙏𝑶 𝑪𝙀𝑵𝙎𝑶𝙍 𝘼𝑴𝙀𝑹𝙄𝑪𝘼𝑵𝙎’ 𝑷𝙊𝑳𝙄𝑻𝙄𝑪𝘼𝑳 𝑺𝙋𝑬𝙀𝑪𝙃.11/6/2023.https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/republicans-judiciary.house.gov/files/evo-media-document/EIP_Jira-Ticket-Staff-Report-11-7-23-Clean.pdf demonstrates why the Westminster Declaration is meaningful.Kmccook (talk) 19:09, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
            • Kathleen, we don't write articles for things because they're "meaningful", we do so where, among other things, it's possible to write something not in violation of our content policies. Which, for one, does not allow Wikipedia editors to make stuff up wholesale based on their own interpretation of events (WP:Original research) nor base an entire article on primary sources (same policy, also violates the other two if the primary sources are non-independent) which includes "this is a thing that happened, now here is a copy-paste/translation of some stuff from it" and not much beyond that. If you want to write about things because they're meaningful, the place to do that is your blog, a peer-reviewed journal, some kind of opinion column or some other article with a publisher of primary or secondary works. Or a book or something. If you do it through a reputable publisher, we could possibly even use it as one of the sources. But: no suitable sources to write an encyclopedia article from, no encyclopedia article. Alpha3031 (t • c) 02:15, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
              • Alpha3031, I understand and hope that someone will write about this in a source that can be cited. Reading the hearings provides background information for someone to do so.Kmccook (talk) 02:56, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since it is a point only addressed obliquely above: The Substack article is a self-published source written by one Andrew Lowenthal, as stated twice in boldface on the page (once in the byline in capital letters), who stated elsewhere that xe is the author of this article's subject, and isn't about this article's subject, and doesn't mention it at all. Uncle G (talk) 09:02, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Considering who's signed it, I wonder if this might be best smerged to Internet censorship?—S Marshall T/C 09:32, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there another related article that can be used as a merge target?
    I've come across several reliable sources discussing the topic of the declaration, addressing the balance between protecting free speech and combating disinformation (https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/news/how-respond-disinformation-while-protecting-free-speech, https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/09/business/free-speech-social-media-lawsuit.html etc), but nothing that would discuss the declaration itself in depth.
    There's definitely an overlap with Internet censorship, but it seems that the topic of free speech vs misinformation has gained notability on it's own. PaulT2022 (talk) 12:55, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm, actually, what about deplatforming as the hypothetical target? Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:48, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This is better, although deplatforming isn't always related to disinformation. I was thinking of something like Disinformation and freedom of speech ideally. (Google Scholar)
    The topic seems to be discussed at Freedom of speech#Relationship with disinformation, but I couldn't find anything else. PaulT2022 (talk) 14:41, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The Westminster Declaration goes way beyond internet censorship. It also covers classical media and government politics. Also, deplatforming is only one tiny little aspect of the declaration's message. Certainly, freedom of speech is a main aspect, but then, attempts to prohibit decrypted private communication is not covered. Keeping the declaration in its own article is by far the best option. --Geek3 (talk) 18:36, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's also not an actual option because of WP:NOR and WP:NOT. As a fairly experienced editor, you should be well aware of the content policies. (There really isn't anything to merge IMO, beyond a bare mention) Alpha3031 (t • c) 06:49, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I am well aware of the content policies, and I read and understand your points. We need to have standards, and I don't see that as an act of censorship. My prior judgement is already based on Wikipedia's notability guidelines, aware of WP:NOR and WP:NOT, and by that I still see the topic clearly notable for a standalone article. And sure, we shall also discuss and further improve the article's content by these guidelines. --Geek3 (talk) 17:20, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Geek3, if it's so clearly notable then you should have no problem presenting some secondary sources that address the article subject directly and in-detail, in their own words independent of the subject then. Or, since you know of OR, let's hypothetically remove every single sentence based only on primary sources or not based on any sources at all. You can tell me what's left. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:02, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Absolutely. The article already cites a bunch of large-media sources which report specifically on the declaration, not just mentioning it as a side-note. There were numerous reportings in classical and other media such as blogs and public radio, even outside the English-speaking world (e.g. [1]). An example of a critical in-depth discussion (although in a non-citable biased source) is named below by Cielquiparle. And for the direct quote, the best source is the official declaration itself. --Geek3 (talk) 13:53, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 17:39, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: make efforts to flesh out Tallard (talk) 04:49, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This Daily Beast op ed piece, "'Twitter Files' Hucksters Are Once Again Cosplaying as Free Speech Martyrs", offers a rather different point of view of this Westminster Declaration...and per WP:BIASED, Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject. Anyway, worth considering whether some of the content from this "2023 Westminster Declaration" page could be merged to the Twitter Files "Aftermath" section for now as an WP:ATD. Cielquiparle (talk) 14:28, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Convert to disambiguation page. Westminster Declaration should be a disambiguation page for all things referred to as "Westminster Declaration", including:
Plus this one if it's kept or merged. Cielquiparle (talk) 14:28, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:SIGCOV and since the article itself admits that "media coverage on the declaration was noticeably low". --Kammerer55 (talk) 02:42, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Please note, that ″significant coverage″ does not refer to the amount of articles, but whether the subject was the main topic of the referring articles, which it is. --Geek3 (talk) 19:25, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, it does not have to be "the main topic" as per WP:SIGCOV, but it should address the topic "in detail". I can read only what New York Post wrote (as other two sources require subscription), but it seems that it is mainly paraphrasing the text and listing the signatories, and the article in question does the same. Hence it's basically just another "news" event report. Maybe, the declaration would eventually produce some real-world effects, but it is too soon to tell. Currently, the topic seems to be more suitable for Wikinews and maybe for Wikisource (as the declaration has a CC-license). Kammerer55 (talk) 21:47, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are clearly enough sources, and stating it didn't exceed expectations is insider talk, so the remaining issue is a subjective one: how much continuing coverage will this likely get beyond a single news cycle? I fall in the camp that it's likely to have "legs." Bearian (talk) 00:17, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Why are we arguing about whether it might be lastingly notable in the future? That's exactly why we have WP:TOOSOON and WP:NEVENT in the first place. It's not notable yet. Might it have lasting impact and become notable in the future? Sure! We can write an article on it then. -- asilvering (talk) 00:58, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Internet censorship. While the declaration covers more than just online media, it seems best suited as a section there. History of the original page is preserved, in case notability becomes clearer in the future, and the article is to be revived as a standalone. Owen× ☎ 16:26, 25 November 2023 (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/Westminster_Declaration&oldid=1186875724"