Talk:Friends of the British Overseas Territories

Is FOTBOT notable enough to have a wiki article?

This is a well constructed article but I wonder if it meets notability requirements. On closer analysis most of the references are OR or they reference something else with a side mention of FOTBOT. It could be said that FOTBOT is merely a small group with a common interest that is looking for self promotion. I had thought of nominating it for deletion but hesitated because it is has been so well structured and the author has obvious put a lot of work into creating it. I am also not sure if FOTBOT has in fact reached the required level of notability. Opinions of others would be welcome.

Hi there. I noticed you'd attempted to establish the page last year @Roger 8 Roger:; I'd be interested to hear what killed it off then. Provided here is an unbiased and appropriately brief account of this organisation, mentioned by reputable media organisations and invoked by national officeholders. Internal references have been kept to a minimum and I would encourage you to point out to me points of original research so that I can iron them out (I've taken care not to breach this particular policy). I'm sorry you feel that this is a self-promotional piece, but I can assure you that I'm an experienced editor, and with that, the greatest care has been taken to avoid such nonsense. Cheers, Curlymanjaro (talk) 22:36, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

I gave some thought to why my earlier stub had been deleted and concluded that FOTBOT probably did not meet the notability standard. Your page is well constructed and certainlt not a stub, but on closer analysis it still fails to establish notability. Just being mentioned on web pages does not mean something is notable. What has FOTBOT actually done to make it notable? Below are comments on the first five references you have provided. In my view, none of them are reliable.

1/ [1] Confirms FOTBOT is a registered charity. 2/ [2] This is a personal view (OR) about the remaining parts of empire, not FOTBOT. 3/ [3] This is the group's own website so is OR. 4/ [4] This is potential advertising by using a logo not widely known. 5/ [5] This is speculative OR about the BOTs, not FOTBOT. And so on... Roger 8 Roger (talk) 22:58, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

• FOTBOT is clearly worthy of note as when the CEO got involved in an online Racism row it made the national press. Strangely all references have been deleted to this, which is frankly the only real media exposure the organisation has had. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23CC:C00:D00:5488:3986:D6EE:3B81 (talk) 22:42, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Facebook group

The founder's facebook group about monuments is not related to the charity so does not belong on this article in my view Atlantic306 (talk) 21:20, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Given that a google search shows the Racism controversy over the CEO, it's been Widley covered by the national Press in both Print and TV News Format. Which clearly mention both the charity and the CEO (Ref: CEO is cited as Key individual) this is clearly relevant to the page and should be allowed. Strong source citation from a leading UK newspaper also attached. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23CC:C00:D00:5488:3986:D6EE:3B81 (talk) 22:21, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

• But how is it relevant to the charity ? Atlantic306 (talk) 22:24, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

• If you read various other organisations pages, especially charities and companies, when conduct issues arise for senior staff (cite Uber Founder and his conduct) it is worthy of note. Suggest we compromise and add a "Controversies section" as per other charities where staff conduct has been an issue? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23CC:C00:D00:5488:3986:D6EE:3B81 (talk) 22:36, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
• Hi, willing to compromise if we can work out the wording here first. For balance we need to include his response to the issue, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:25, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Transfer of a IP editor's comment from my talk page

The IP placed the below message on my talk page. I think it is meant to be here, on the article talk page. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 07:25, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

"== Friends of the British Overseas =="

You reverted my revert. The comment was in respect of the CEO's conduct online, this is appropriate comment for 2 reasons: 1) It was Widley covered by National Press and TV News in the UK. (Guardian article as citation) 2) The Individual in question is cited as a Key individual.

It is well known and covered that these activities took place and the links support that. Given this incident is widely reported to the under investigation by both the Police and the Charity Commission. It's highly relevant and should be included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23CC:C00:D00:5488:3986:D6EE:3B81 (talk) 22:27, 20 July 2020 (UTC)