Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boriswave

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 Modern immigration to the United Kingdom#Brexit and COVID. While opinions as to sourcing are divided, there has not been a serious rebuttal of the argument that the first article is a WP:CFORK (whether or not also a POV fork is immaterial) of the second: they both deal with the same topic, which is post-Brexit immigration to the UK. Our policies direct that we should not have two articles about the same topic, especially not an article about "X" and another about "Criticism of X", which is essentially what we have here. Editors should determine what if any content from the "Boriswave" article is suitable for merging to Modern immigration to the United Kingdom#Brexit and COVID. It is possible that the result might be suitable for a new spinoff subarticle (WP:SS) such as Post-Brexit immigration to the United Kingdom. Sandstein 15:42, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Boriswave

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

Boriswave (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)

I have never heard this term used before. As another user observed this appears to have been referred to by a single writer for the Telegraph. I suspect the intent behind creating this article seems to be to create chatter so that it becomes a meme, which is subsequently used as a reason to have the page. John Smith's (talk) 13:44, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This term is widely used on Twitter. I've seen it like 20 times this year 213.147.110.205 (talk) 13:43, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think a term being used by 20 people on social media deserves its own article. John Smith's (talk) 13:46, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's in common circulation on twitter and other social media outlets.
And it's certainly not 20 people. The OP reference that they personally had seen it 20 times. There's no hard and fast statistical analysis on this - just like many cultural references.
I suspect there's political motivation to prevent this article as it criticises Boris Johnson and he has a large base of political supporters. Gp1v07 (talk) 14:16, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So far I'm the only person that's suggested the page be deleted. In contrast there's a sudden influx of unregistered users and people with few historical edits arguing to keep the page.
You've not exactly contributed much to Wikipedia, have you? John Smith's (talk) 14:18, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is Wikipedia a [omissis] measuring contest, or a place for open debate? 94.196.172.99 (talk) 15:34, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have been contributing for over 15 years, albeit infrequently. So it's pretty obvious I'm not what you allude to. My knowledge, academic qualification and professional experience is specialised in history and politics, hence why I make occasional contributions in these areas.
Does frequency of contributing make someone's views more valid? Gp1v07 (talk) 16:24, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it is a well sourced article and the terminology has clearly been used in more sources than the Telegraph, as has already been pointed out on the Talk page. To say otherwise is disingenuous and it seems you were more quick to call it a "clearly ridiculous" article than to actually check the sources. 148.252.144.37 (talk) 13:50, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep — @John Smith's has assumed bad faith in this discussion.
Mass third-world immigration and the Conservative Party’s repeated choice not to reduce or end it (as they promised) are two of the major topics in contemporary British politics. They deserve their own article outside Modern immigration to the United Kingdom. Keeper of Albion (talk) 14:04, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So have a descriptive title rather than use something that is not common. If you asked the man on the street they wouldn't know what the "boriswave" is. Not least because the "wave" hasn't ended - net migration to the UK remains high. John Smith's (talk) 14:09, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the phenomenon is worthy of coverage, and is reliably sourced. Elshad (talk) 14:28, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I can find a few reliable sources that use the term to describe the recent surge of migration to the UK: Unherd, The Critic, The Telegraph, Reaction. The issue seems to be that they're split between using "Boriswave", "Boris Wave" and "Boris-wave"... A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 14:31, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There was a qualitative change in immigration to the United Kingdom after Brexit, in countries of origin and the inflection point in numbers. Both the phenomenon and the name are supported by the sources. I see no need to merge into another article, Wikipedia is not limited by space, so we can go into detail in a dedicated article. cagliost (talk) 14:38, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is a term created by a right-wing twitter subculture, and nearly all of its uses outside of this twitter subculture have been in polemical articles by writers who are part of that subculture. This article contains no information that couldn't be folded into Modern immigration to the United Kingdom. And considering that the guy who created the term also created this article, or at least is implying that on twitter, I see some conflict of interest.Theodore Christopher (talk) 14:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no article on wikipedia that contains information that cannot be folded into another page. You can fold the information in a page about insulin into a page about something completely arbitrary to the topic, if you wanted. It doesn't make sense to do this though, because different articles have different focuses. Modern immigration page describes the overall and ongoing trend of modern immigration in the United Kingdom, whereas the Boriswave article in question deals with a description of the term and its context. I get a sense that you might be politically biased from your phrasing and this would itself imply a conflict of interest. Even if what you state is correct, why does this mean the term doesn't warrant its own page especially considering the context and references conveniently apportioned to the term just below (which would otherwise be much harder to find in a sea of references, in another page)? Jbeda.2000 (talk) 22:14, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Articles on Wikipedia are combined and scrutinized because of relevance issues all the time. In any event, what this article calls the "Boriswave", a surge in immigration since 2021, is neatly within the purview of "Modern immigration to the UK". The far larger-scale 2015 influx of Syrian refugees into Germany doesn't even have its own distinct article, not because it isn't extremely well-attested to in the media, but because that surge is covered within 2015 European migrant crisis and Immigration to Germany. So, yeah, regardless of my feelings about Twitter user Max Tempers, this is just not an article that belongs on Wikipedia for the time being.Theodore Christopher (talk) 22:22, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete None of the sources focus on the term, only really mentioning the term as a passing, trivial reference so therefore it fails WP:SIGCOV. Even a basic search doesn't bring the term up in connection to what it purports to. I agree with Theodore above, anything of substance can easily be merged into the UK immigration article. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 15:18, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We're meant to take a user called "The C of E God Save the King!" seriously when discussing Conservative Party policies!? 81.158.176.237 (talk) 19:18, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it is a well sourced article and a simple search on Twitter shows hundred of entries simply for the past week. The term is clearly in active use and frequently referenced. Arugia (talk) 15:38, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, Twitter is not a reliable source, and usage of a term does not make the term suitable for Wikipedia. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:43, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: "Boriswave is a term" - but Wikipedia is WP:NOTDICT, not a dictionary. Contrary to the assertions of some !voters above, the article is not strongly sourced: the sources are of variable quality, full of errors, and offer only passing mentions which briefly use the term (or variants of it) without discussing it. That is clear deletion territory. The substance of the article, such as it is, concerns Modern immigration to the United Kingdom which already exists as an article. There's basically nothing worth merging, either. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:43, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not all the sources are good, but enough of them are. cagliost (talk) 16:04, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment is this supposed to be an article about immigration to the UK in recent years since Brexit (which happens to be called a boriswave), or an article about a notable term (boriswave) which has been applied to recent immigration? If it's about recent immigration, then sources exist and it might be notable, but I'm dubious because immigration has been a continuous, perennial issue in the UK since the Romans turned up, so it's questionable whether the sources justify a new article specifically for recent immigration. On this basis I'm a maybe-weak-keep provided it's moved to a better title. But if it's about the term, it's definitely not notable, because no matter how prevalent a term is in Twitter, we need it to be recognised in longer-lasting, serious sources, which would make me a delete. Elemimele (talk) 16:04, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft Keep. The sources that support its use are of variable quality, but the way in which the pace and composition of immigration to the United Kingdom changed so dramatically post-Brexit, and the political controversy it has caused, may be worthy of a seperate article that goes into the phenomenon in depth. Regarding the views of an editor above that the term is a product of a social media subculture, I share this concern and think a name change might be worthwhile, but believe the article should stay at least for now. Holyisland (talk) 16:14, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge: to the "Modern immigration" page where the term is already used, seems like a decent option instead of deletion. Oaktree b (talk) 17:35, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Seconded - I believe that User:Oaktree b's proposal of merging the article with the "Modern Immigration" page to flesh out where the term is already used seems like a sensible solution to this issue. BillyDee (talk) 17:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This term will probably come to be used for this immigration wave (I can think of no other word to use despite wanting to avoid such a word) and so wish to make clear that this AfD should not be used to prevent future articles titled so if it is nominated for deletion.
EPEAviator (talk) 18:33, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The Boriswave is a statistically distinct phenomenon in the modern history of immigration into the UK, and as such deserves its own page. Benjji22212 (talk) 20:01, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was originally merge, but feel people have made plenty of decent arguments here for keep. It also seems to be more in use than previously thought due to different ways of writing it. I suspect even if this article gets deleted it will be back in some form in a few years as the level of immigration into the UK over the past 4 years is completely unheard of in the history of the UK. Historians will want a way to refer to it, and it seems there's a catchy one gaining popularity. 2A02:C7C:7CCC:7A00:C862:50D2:90F7:AD5E (talk) 20:28, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'd literally *never* heard of this before today. A Google search for "Boriswave" brings up absolutely nothing. Ninehundreddollarydoos (talk) 21:50, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep
What exactly is the articles existence detracting from? what confusion does it generate to exist, on its own, independent of other articles covering the same topic like the aforementioned modern immigration to the United Kingdom.
Provided the page is well referenced, and that there is proper disambiguation to cover similar terms like 'boris wave' or 'Boris-wave' and point in the direction of other pages, let it exist. It is after all a Wikipedia page primarily explaining what the 'boriswave' term means, which has been used in the mainstream media so it's not random.
It's not simply a replication of the other page because it contains information vital to understanding the term. It's also not possible to fold the information into another page without altering the focus and convenience of what is stated in the current 'boriswave' article; what you would be left with is a more obscure footnote and a decision between repeating previous information in the page to provide immediate context (which would create time inefficiency for users looking for those terms in different sections using ctrl+f, for example) or an inconveniently lacking summarisation of the term with at best a pointer back to the previously mentioned information. Jbeda.2000 (talk) 22:08, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly is the articles existence detracting from?, see WP:HARMLESS.what confusion does it generate to exist, independent of other articles covering the same topic, see WP:POVFORK.Provided the page is well referenced, well that's the crux of the issue, it isn't well sourced; it's all passing mentions in WP:RSOPINION.It is after all a Wikipedia page primarily explaining what the 'boriswave' term means, except Wikipedia is WP:NOTDICTIONARY; perhaps you were looking for wiktionary.what you would be left with is a more obscure footnote which based on how little the terms seems to be used thus far in WP:RSs, and per WP:PROPORTION, seems appropriate. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 12:18, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I had been considering AFDing this myself as a WP:POVFORK of Modern immigration to the United Kingdom. I'm finding virtually nothing about this usage of "Boriswave" or "Boris wave" in reliable sources, and for the most part, the references in the article itself don't specifically discuss it either.Jay8g [V•T•E] 22:17, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Elshad. We don't delete pages just because one editor hasn't heard of the topic. Dāsānudāsa (talk) 09:33, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If actually you look, there is actually a fair amount of POLICY based delete !votes that amount to more than not having head of it. I'm actually having a hard time seeing any keep !votes that make reference to policy, and I will remind that it is the quality arguments (not number of !votes) that decides consensus (WP:DETCON). Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 12:05, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a WP:POVFORK and WP:NOTDICT failure. Despite some assertions above we don't make articles on subjects just because they are popular on WP:TWITTER. All of the sources in the article or presented here either don't mention the term or are WP:RSOPINION that use it in passing. I've yet to see any in-depth non-opinion reliable source that is actually about the term, to show that it meets WP:N. Anything of use is already at Modern immigration to the United Kingdom. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 11:59, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:NEO, WP:NOTDICT. Few if any reliable sources use the term. Modern immigration to the United Kingdom is the correct place to cover the topic. Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:50, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I can't find any reliable sources providing sigcov to this topic. In fact, it seems to me that most coverage about "Boriswave" is about the lofi beats rather than immigration. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 15:59, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - keep because I see significant coverage, weak because I find it distasteful. Bearian (talk) 21:29, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:NOTDICT. Could stand to be merged into the overarching article, as this does seem like a bit of a POV-fork. Possibly rename to a non-neological title, but this is a pretty weak option imo. CR (talk) 22:09, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. The term is well documented. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiggat (talk • contribs) 04:05, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The term is well documented and refers to a genuine phenomenon that has been noted in many mainstream news outlets. It is a significant enough change in immigration to the UK (unprecedented numbers, switch from EU to non-EU) that it is worth having a separate article. It is similar in concept to the 'Lawson Boom' (the macroeconomic conditions at the end of the 1980s associated with Nigel Lawson), on which there is an article, rather than simply being folded into the article on Nigel Lawson or on 'The British economy in the 1980s'. Thermocycler (talk) 08:19, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For both you and Tiggat:The term is well documented what (non-opinion) reliable source document the term. And as to the Lawson Boom article, making arguments to keep/delete based on other article's existence is generally discouraged (see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). It may be that nobody has got round to sorting out that not-particularly-well-sourced article. I'll also note that we don't have a separate article on the similar Barber Boom, so you can hardly call it precedent that we have articles on every catchy term the press comes up with. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 09:18, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete further to my comment above. It's pretty obvious that the article is about immigration, not the term "Boriswave", and the term is much, much sparser in sourcing than the actual subject of immigration. The "real" subject is covered at Modern immigration to the United Kingdom of which this article is a pointless fork, and the "named" subject lacks notability. Further, much as I dislike Johnson, I feel that carving out this particular episode in immigration and attaching his name to it feels very much like an attempt to politicise Wikipedia, a mudslinging exercise, which is hardly in keeping with neutral point of view. The Modern immigration article is much more encyclopedic. Elemimele (talk) 13:09, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or, at best, rename. There is barely any sourcing of the term itself, and there are other articles about immigration to UK. - Karel Bílek (talk). 14:23, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hard Delete. This article unequivocally fails to meet Wikipedia's standards for notability and neutrality, warranting a hard delete. The term itself is scarcely referenced in reliable sources, with most mentions being fleeting or confined to opinion pieces and social media chatter. This lack of substantial, independent coverage violates Wikipedia’s core policies, including WP:NOTDICT and WP:NEO, as the article functions more as a dictionary definition or speculative narrative than a legitimate encyclopedic entry. Furthermore, the article serves as a WP:POVFORK, duplicating content already thoroughly addressed in Modern Immigration to the United Kingdom. Any meaningful information can and should be integrated into that broader context, where it can be presented more neutrally and cohesively. Allowing this article to remain risks politicizing Wikipedia and undermining its credibility. It is redundant, poorly sourced, and detracts from the encyclopedia’s mission to provide well-researched and balanced information. TitCrisse (talk) 04:07, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete even if the term itself was significantly supported, which it isn't (I deleted the blog reference that was being used as the only source for it), it fails the basic notability requirement at WP:GNG. WP:GNG saysa topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, and that'sources' should be secondary sources. However, this topic fails on both counts. There is no significant coverage in RSes, and with much of the article relying on OR/SYNTH personal interpretation of primary sources, there are very few secondary sources used at all. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:42, 23 December 2024 (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/Boriswave&oldid=1281770091"
Uses material from the Wikipedia article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boriswave, released under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license.