Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/England: Difference between revisions
Listing Aamir Ghauri |
|||
Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
==England== |
==England== |
||
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aamir Ghauri}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DEMAND Campaign}} |
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DEMAND Campaign}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of collieries in Yorkshire 1984-present with dates of closure}} |
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of collieries in Yorkshire 1984-present with dates of closure}} |
Revision as of 04:47, 10 October 2008
Points of interest related to England on Wikipedia: Outline – History – Portal – Category – WikiProject – Alerts – Deletions – Stubs – Assessment |
Deletion Sorting Project |
---|
|
This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to England. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.
- Adding a new AfD discussion
- Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
- Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
- You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|England|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
- Note that there are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
- Removing a closed AfD discussion
- Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
- Other types of discussions
- You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to England. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
- Further information
- For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.
This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to UK.
Purge page cache | watch |
England
- 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 delete. Stifle (talk) 08:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Aamir Ghauri
- Aamir Ghauri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
no established notability except from one minor source, reads as promotional Daviddavey (talk) 04:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:48, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: not notable. Alexius08 (talk) 05:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and improve. Seems to be notable. [1] - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:12, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How so? There aren't major sources from Pakistan or elsewhere that cite his work. Or am I missing something?--Daviddavey (talk) 12:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete insufficient notability. He's a TV personality in Pakistan, So ??? Annette46 (talk) 15:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete As above. Non-notable personality. doktorb wordsdeeds 21:39, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- seems to be a NN journalist. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:26, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. He is behind major news programs. You may not value Pakistan news, but people in Pakistan do not value American news channels, yet we have articles on people who are probably less disticntive to American news. Wikipedia is meant to world wide, not just American.
- 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.
- 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 delete. Stifle (talk) 08:47, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DEMAND Campaign
- DEMAND Campaign (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Local political campaign to improve noise control at East Midlands Airport. There is news coverage about it, e.g. [2]. Nonetheless, there are many campaigns like this, surely at least one per airport, and the article as it is is very soapboxy. I don't even see it important enough for a merge/redirect to East Midlands Airport.
The "campaign news" lists all related news articles, some of which cover the campaign directly. AmaltheaTalk 22:32, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LegoKontribsTalkM 00:24, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The reasons are IMHO inadequately substantiated and thus the proposal to delete should be rejected.
a) "Local political campaign to improve noise control at East Midlands Airport. There is news coverage about it, e.g. [1]" - the extent cannot be readily quantified, but the vast majority of the local articles appear to have broken URLs and can no longer be easily traced. Some of the key issues precede the timeframe of articles listed. The domain is complex - which includes for example, planning and environmental legislation, and also the consideration of commercial, private and political interests - and cannot be readily distilled by a layperson or newcomer simply perusing news stories.
b) "Nonetheless, there are many campaigns like this, surely at least one per airport" - why should this render the Wikipedia entry as lacking merit ? Using the same argument, why not scrap the individual airport entries and simply have a generalised entry for UK airports ? NB There are also 'pro-airport' campaign groups, which equally warrant an inclusion in Wikipedia.
c) "the article as it is is very soapboxy" - As a constructive suggestion, why not edit the content to remedy this perceived shortcoming ?
d) "I don't even see it important enough for a merge/redirect to East Midlands Airport" - Why isn't it 'important enough' ?
Lemotsjuste, 6 October 2008 (apologies if this response doesn't accord with Wikipedia protocol in any way) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lemotsjuste (talk • contribs) 11:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Your response is perfectly fine. However, I'm still not convinced.
To quote the basic inclusion guideline: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." I don't see that in this case here.
I've looked at a lot more of the articles listed at the "campaign news". All articles hosted at http://www.thisisderbyshire.co.uk/ or http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/ are broken and I couldn't find them elsewhere. Quite a few aren't covering this particular campaign at all, but rather generic environmental and health issues caused by air traffic.
There are still a number of articles left where the campaign or its chairman is mentioned: [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10].
The ones that come closest to significant coverage are the first four in the Melton Times. All others that I found are basically name drops of the campaign or its spokesperson. Note that I haven't looked at all of them, only those with headlines that looked promising.
Based on the articles that I've read I am convinced that this local compaign is not notable enough for a standalone article, as it does in no way stand out from the countless petitions, campains and referenda worldwide. Since Wikipedia is not a directory of all of those I think it should be deleted.
I don't blame other editors for not wanting to take part in this discussion, it's not a very attractive AfD, but hopefully someone finds the time to give a third opinion.
AmaltheaTalk 13:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 05:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, per Amalthea. I looked through some of the links at http://www.demand.uk.net/campaign-news.asp Most seem to cover the issue rather than DEMAND and do not mention DEMAND by name. Many links and footnotes in the article also cover the issue rather than the organization. As for the organization itself, I too found the coverage available to be insufficient. Most are passing mentions and nothing that I would call in-depth. Nsk92 (talk) 10:59, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, also per Amalthea. There arearticles onthe problem, but little to nothing on the group itself. At best, this is a merge as a sentence or so at East Midlands Airport. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:50, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for the elaboration.
a) "I've looked at a lot more of the articles listed at the "campaign news"... Quite a few aren't covering this particular campaign at all, but rather generic environmental and health issues caused by air traffic" - Agreed.
b) "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." I don't see that in this case here. - The campaign has received predominantly regional coverage in the print media (mainly Derbyshire, Leicestershire and Nottinghamshire newspapers), which qualify as "independent of the subject". Archived editorial stories specifically citing the organisation which have been traced, and which would have also appeared in print as well as on the web, total 44:
www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk ... 13 off www.thisisnottingham.co.uk ... 13 off www.meltontimes.co.uk ... 3 off www.meltonmowbraytoday.co.uk ... 3 off www.loughboroughecho.net ... 1 off www.harboroughtoday.co.uk ... 1 off www.burtonmail.co.uk ... 2 off www.thisisderbyshire.co.uk ... 8 off
The archive is incomplete and so this probably understates the actual editorial coverage but 44 serves as a useful order of magnitude.
National print media coverage includes: Free to find out all you want? - Sunday July 24, 2005 The Observer What if it's in your back yard? - Sunday October 29, 2006 The Observer
There has been other coverage nationally, e.g., mentioning the organisation, but not naming it: Focus: New plan revealed for flight-path Britain, The Sunday Times, February 11, 2007
c) "Based on the articles that I've read I am convinced that this local compaign is not notable enough for a standalone article, as it does in no way stand out from the countless petitions, campains and referenda worldwide."
The airport has been described as: "... the second largest international freight hub in the UK (after Heathrow), and the largest for the volume carried on dedicated freight aircraft. NEMA serves as a national express freight hub specialising in the movement of high-value, low-weight items and so serves many growth sectors of the economy including pharmaceuticals ..."
Source: 'A flourishing region: Regional Economic Strategy for the East Midlands 2006-2020', East Midlands Development Agency jointly with the East Midlands Regional Assembly, undated but circa 2006, p.95
Express air freight relies heavily on night-time operations, and according to government data the airport had the highest concentration of night-time flights in the UK:
UK Night Air Transport Movements For 2003 (23:30-06:00 hrs):
Nottingham East Midlands 14,184 Gatwick 13,155 Manchester 9,551 Liverpool 9,447 Stansted 9,046 Luton 6,458 Heathrow 5,969 Edinburgh 5,242 Birmingham 4,592 Glasgow 2,841 Cardiff 1,522
Source: Night Flying Restrictions at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted, Department for Transport, July 2004 (p.38)
However, it has been claimed in court, and with no apparent refutation by the planning authority, that a major runway extension received planning approval contrary to the environmental assessment requirements of European and national (UK) legislation:
"The proposed ground of challenge is that the DC [district council] breached its obligation under the Town and Country Planning (Assessment of Environmental Effects) Regulations 1988 ... - the Regulations by which the UK implemented EC Directive 85/337/EEC - by granting the 1994 consent without first considering 'the environmental information' and to that end requiring an environmental statement"
Source: Regina v. North West Leicestershire District Council & EMA ex parte Moses, Court of Appeal, 12th April 2000
Consequently, a night-time noise control scheme formulated by the airport and its customers (primarily express air freight operators) was imposed on the local community by UK national government in 2002. This scheme was considered inadequate and therefore unacceptable by the planning authority and local residents' groups.
Sources: i) "EMA produced its own enhanced noise control scheme, which the main night operators DHL, TNT and UPS, under the aegis of the Association of International Courier and Express Services (AICES), were willing to accept." (2003 Report to Ministers, Letter from the Aviation Minister, Department for Transport, 10 February 2005, ii) Letter to NW Leicestershire District Council from the Aviation Minister, Department for Transport, 18th June 2002
Lemotsjuste, 8 October 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lemotsjuste (talk • contribs) 20:03, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An afterthought: do you have access to anyone with some specialist knowledge of the domain (UK air transportation), and who doesn't have a conflict of interests, who could review this ?
Lemotsjuste, 9 October 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.32.104 (talk) 08:15, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.
- Do not delete -- This seeme a legitimate subject and adequately referenced. The question is whether it should remain as an article (Keep or be merged to become a section in East Midlands airport, perhaps trimmed in length. If merged, it might be better to entitle the (new) section "noise pollution complaints. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:22, 11 October 2008 (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.
- 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 keep. I suggest to continue the discussion about a new name on the talk page. Sandstein 11:11, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
List of collieries in Yorkshire 1984-present with dates of closure
- List of collieries in Yorkshire 1984-present with dates of closure (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This is an unsourced list. It is also a breach of WP:PLACE ("We do not take the minority view that the historic counties still exist with the former boundaries".), by way of asserting Yorkshire exists in 1984 and beyond. --Jza84 | Talk 18:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. --Jza84 | Talk 18:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and Rename as "List of collieries in West and South Yorkshire 1984 to present with dates of closure". The list contains information which is useful to family, local, social and industrial historians and could be sourced retrospectively, as are many articles.--Harkey (talk) 18:58, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You've been asking for sources since August. Did you not look for sources yourself in all that time? I found this within 10 minutes, most of which was spent looking at ISBN 0415111145, which I've just used to improve British Coal. Problems with the word "Yorkshire" in the title can be fixed by use of the "move" button, and don't require anyone to delete anything. Uncle G (talk) 19:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict)I'm an unpaid volunteer, with little interest in this field, so no I didn't look (instead I helped get an FA to the main page in that time), and have no intention of looking for such an arbitrarily policy breaching named-article. Asking for sources in August was a courtesy. Who on earth is going to look for a list of colleries in West and South Yorkshire in 1984 anyway? Why not Lancashire and Oxfordshire in 1985? --Jza84 | Talk 19:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- We're all unpaid volunteers. It's not something that is special to you alone. And yet many of us look for sources not only in fields that we have no interest in, but in fields that we even consider distasteful. It's part of collaboratively building an encyclopaedia. Asking for sources isn't a courtesy. It's a standard part of Wikipedia triage.
Your first question is a loaded question based upon the false premise that this is a list of collieries in 1984, and is thus unanswerable. As for your second, see list of collieries in Lancashire 1854-present. Uncle G (talk) 21:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Asking for sources is a courtesy - I could've just removed all unsourced material blind (per policy), then speedy-deleted this myself. Also, the Lancashire list does not include Oxfordshire - you're missing my point that combining two counties is arbitary, and doesn't reflect real world practice (WP:SYNTH, WP:NEOLOGISM?). And I do not believe I said being unpaid is special (that's your inference), but the burden of sourcing is on the person who adds content, not those who challenge it (see WP:V). This is pretty basic editorial stuff; I appreciate your citing your own lengthy self-written pages here, but I'm working within the bounds of real, codified, consensual policy. If many of you want to find sources in your spare time, then now is the time to do it - I'm challenging you here (isn't that the point of AFD?)... --Jza84 | Talk 21:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually its the "Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire and Yorkshire Coalfield" ("Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire and Yorkshire Coalfield". www.countryside.gov.uk.) which adjective would we have to remove? The word Yorkshire is being used as an adjective as it often is, not a proper noun.--Harkey (talk) 21:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Jza84 is incorrect when he says that it does reflect real world practice to link West and South Yorkshire together; the two are constantly linked. The phrase Yorkshire is far more common that saying W.Yorks, S.Yorks., etc. (By the way, 6 of the pits were in North Yorkshire.) I was unaware of the Lancs list beforehand, but it is interesting to note that this does not abide by the policy interpretation that Jza84 is invoking: many of the pits listed are now in Greater Manchester. Why has that page not been tagged? I feel that Jza84's application of Wikipedia policy is rather disproportionate to such a small issue, especially when he admits that he knows little of the subject matter that the article was written for. If all else fails, we can settle for calling it "... in Yorkshire and the Humber", which is a government region. Nothing in Wikipedia policy can challenge that. Epa101 (talk) 17:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Asking for sources is a courtesy - I could've just removed all unsourced material blind (per policy), then speedy-deleted this myself. Also, the Lancashire list does not include Oxfordshire - you're missing my point that combining two counties is arbitary, and doesn't reflect real world practice (WP:SYNTH, WP:NEOLOGISM?). And I do not believe I said being unpaid is special (that's your inference), but the burden of sourcing is on the person who adds content, not those who challenge it (see WP:V). This is pretty basic editorial stuff; I appreciate your citing your own lengthy self-written pages here, but I'm working within the bounds of real, codified, consensual policy. If many of you want to find sources in your spare time, then now is the time to do it - I'm challenging you here (isn't that the point of AFD?)... --Jza84 | Talk 21:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- We're all unpaid volunteers. It's not something that is special to you alone. And yet many of us look for sources not only in fields that we have no interest in, but in fields that we even consider distasteful. It's part of collaboratively building an encyclopaedia. Asking for sources isn't a courtesy. It's a standard part of Wikipedia triage.
- (edit conflict)I'm an unpaid volunteer, with little interest in this field, so no I didn't look (instead I helped get an FA to the main page in that time), and have no intention of looking for such an arbitrarily policy breaching named-article. Asking for sources in August was a courtesy. Who on earth is going to look for a list of colleries in West and South Yorkshire in 1984 anyway? Why not Lancashire and Oxfordshire in 1985? --Jza84 | Talk 19:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The linking of South Yorkshire and West Yorkshire collieries is not artificial - when people talked of "Yorkshire miners" they did not distinguish between the two counties. To compare this pair of adjacent counties to a combination like "Lancashire and Oxfordshire" is not appropriate. PamD (talk) 22:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll attempt to obtain the following publication to verify the information. "IngentaConnect Colliery Closures and the Decline of the UK Coal Industry". www.ingentaconnect.com. Retrieved 2008-10-07.--Harkey (talk) 19:16, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I just Googled "colliery closure dates" and the article in question came up on the first page. It's a search term that I might have used when compiling local or family histories.--Harkey (talk) 19:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I created the page a very long time ago. My main resources were Colin Jackson's A to Z of Colliery Names, Pre-1947 Owners, Areas & Dates and the Northern Mining Research Network. I shall go onto the page now and add these are references. On the subject of historical counties, I did not intend the article as some sort of political statement in support of Yorkshire's boundaries, and I think that anyone who does is rather sensationalist. The suggestion by Hackney Lodger might be a good compromise here. I grouped the collieries in terms of district as this seemed more useful than doing it by West, South, North. For example, it seemed misleading to say that there were 20 collieries in West Yorkshire when 15 of those were in just one small distict. Epa101 (talk) 19:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- (Attempted to add before above statement but got edit conflict, so added any way,)Keep - Dont think its the neccesarily the best Name for an article, but to claim it breaches WP naming convention when the whole area in terms of Coal mining was refered to in general terms as the Yorkshire Coal Field, it a bit of thin reason to delete it. (Should WP:Yorkshire be broken up into the administrative areas then ? under said naming convention). Agree its un sourced but as the list links to multiple articles are they all not relavent. Do we deleted every article with no refs ? because a large number of what are now decent articles started with vauge references or no refs. As a stand alone article it has more use than a lot of the Bulk greated Stubs for places and streams and creeeks etc that can be found. Agree you did put a note on the talk page asking for refs. So I'd say keep & rename or merge, into an article on the coal fields of ? (Northern England as Yorkshire not allowed apparently) If we found it others will. (Note have no association with mining other than Tagging for Project Yorkshire, Sheffield and Derbyshire aricles that fall under there areas) - BulldozerD11 (talk) 19:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sources have been added now.
- P.S. I would rather have this article expanded to include all 1984 collieries rather than see its deletion. Yes, I shall try to do the work myself if need be. I can understand why someone from anywhere else in the country might wonder why Wikipedia did not cater to their area, so it might be advisable. However, that should not be an excuse for deleting the valuable information that is already assembled on Yorkshire. Epa101 (talk) 19:59, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and rename- (a) drop the "with dates of closure" - lists often contain useful information, and it needn't be specified in the article title(eg Long-distance footpaths in the United Kingdom isn't Long-distance footpaths in the United Kingdom with length and location); (b) consider changing to List of collieries in Yorkshire and the Humber 1984-present to use a current region name. It seems a useful compilation of information which has a place in WP. PamD (talk) 22:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, rename, and rescue I disagree a little with Pam about how to do it: I'd keep the closing dates, but add the date of starting, at least approximately, and make stub articles on every one of them. DGG (talk) 23:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and rename to list of collieries in Yorkshire, then add other colleries in Yorkshire and other notable information, such as date they opened, and possibly location, maximum workforce or output. Warofdreams talk 02:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Good suggestion. I was thinking that a table would be a better way of representing everything. I can categorise them by district easily enough once I get some time. My only reservation would be over other collieries in Yorkshire, seeing as there used to hundreds. My home town of Ossett had 8 pits at the time of the 1926 strike yet its population back then was around 10,000. I doubt that any Wiki user is sufficiently committed to list them all, although I might yet be surprised on this issue. Epa101 (talk) 17:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and rename to List of collieries in Yorkshire operating since 1984. This is a legitimate subject. Such lists are a useful means of identifying missing articles (by redlinking). Such articles are frequently wholy unreferenced, becasue the references are better placed in the articles on items listed. I would oppose the conversion into an article on all collieries in Yorkshire, since the list would be almost endless. It was formerly common to talk of the Derbyshire coalfield as distinct from the Yorkshire one; no doubt that is semantics, since they are continuous. If a separate article is wanted on the Debyshire/Nottinghamshire coalfield (or others), it can no dount be created. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've linked a lot of the names to "Missing articles" or the Village if it talks about the mine, as a expanded section in that articles better than loads of stubs. (note several of the formmer pits still have Football teams named after them with Wiki article, that have not been linked to but a short pargraf in the article and a back link would be useful.
- If it was renamed to a general collierires list it can be split when it gets too big (if ever). Lists are usefull as it stops articles filling up and links related items Categories do not always work for sorting - BulldozerD11 (talk) 18:39, 8 October 2008 (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.
- 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 keep. Stifle (talk) 08:28, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Jamboree 2008 (Northumberland)
- Jamboree 2008 (Northumberland) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable, regional event with only 300 participants. jergen (talk) 15:07, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This event is notable, mainly to mark the 100 years since the first Scout Camp after Scouting started in the UK. It is now sourced. --Bduke (Discussion) 20:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Notable event - marked the centenary of the birth of Scouts and an crucial point in history. Also brought about a continuing development model for allowing access to activities - must be recorded! --Porlhews (Discussion) 00:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Notable event - reasons given on talk page. NOT regional - INTERNATIONAL. Marking centenary of First Scout Camp. Attended by members of WOSM and WFIS. Attended by members of both main Scout associations in the UK. Was externally sourced prior to deletion demand. Number of participants surely not relevant unless Jergen is proposing we delete Brownsea and Carr Edge 1907 as well? (Apologies for sarcasm...) DiverScout (talk) 23:51, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Sole for the number of participants, the Camps on Brownsea 1907 and in Carr Edge 1908 would not be notable; they are notable because of their historical impact - but I do not see the historical dimension of this event. Camps with three hundred participants are organized every weekend through the world (I attended three of that size during the last three weeks), participants from different organizations are not that particular outside the UK, regional media coverage is normal... So what? This was a small camp with half the expected participants, mainly from the region, and it had no impact on the British Scout movement. If it were the first step of rapprochement between TSA and BPSA, it could gaine historical significance; but this can not be judged right now. --jergen (talk) 08:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment:In a country where a senior member of one Scout Association refers, on public record, to the other Scout Association as "a dissident organisation" (see reference 7 on main article), an independent Jamboree that brings elements of the two together is certainly notable. It has been reported on nationally on the television, and internationally in the press. The main notability for this event, though, is that it was the major event celebrating the centenary of the first official Scout Camp held by Baden-Powell. This, in itself, is notable. DiverScout (talk) 16:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment:
"I do not see the historical dimension of this event" - time will prove the historical dimension to this event, that is exactly why it must be recorded now!
Jergen's main point seems to be the size of the event - this seems to show a lack of appreciation for history. Small acorns leading to mighty oaks as Baden Powell fameously wrote. If Jergen's point stands then the majority of Wikipedia needs to be removed - Sellafield railway station is an obvious example that the "Random Article" feature brings to mind.
As Jegen says, as this was a significant as it was "the first step of rapprochement between TSA and BPSA" and as such may gain "historical significance". Whilst the offer was apparently controversal, it was taken up by a number of WOSM and SA members. See the 147 posts discussing Jamboree 2008 and the BPSA on the popular Escouts Forum for further discussion proving this event's significance.
Porlhews (talk) 16:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Porlhews (talk • contribs) [reply]
- Comment: Sole for the number of participants, the Camps on Brownsea 1907 and in Carr Edge 1908 would not be notable; they are notable because of their historical impact - but I do not see the historical dimension of this event. Camps with three hundred participants are organized every weekend through the world (I attended three of that size during the last three weeks), participants from different organizations are not that particular outside the UK, regional media coverage is normal... So what? This was a small camp with half the expected participants, mainly from the region, and it had no impact on the British Scout movement. If it were the first step of rapprochement between TSA and BPSA, it could gaine historical significance; but this can not be judged right now. --jergen (talk) 08:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The article needs more work, but is not irredeemable. More reliable sources have been added and the citations have been cleaned up so that they are more recognizable. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 13:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tertiary Sources (Specific issue cited for this article)
Although some of the news entries had been deleted before I could link to them, there are now several reliable tertiary sources added to this article, in both the UK and Portugal. Hexham Courant (Northumberland, UK), Lynn News (Norfolk, UK), Primeira Mão (Portugal), Maia Hoje (Portugal), Awards for All, WFIS, a Scout Association County newsletter and an entry from the Northumberland National Park.
- The first four appear to be good sources; the others are more primary, but helpful. If you still have the links to the online articles that were deleted, list them on the talk page an we will see if we can recover them. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 13:16, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I assume that this meets the requirements in terms of referenced tertiary sources needed for a Wikipedia article? Please compare this to Jamboree 2008 (Ireland) (noted as needing extra sources on 1st August 2008, but not placed AfD) or 21st World Scout Jamboree (all bar one entry appear to be non-tertiary, and the tertiary source is regional media (see above)). DiverScout (talk) 13:06, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If those articles have problems, then they will be dealt with as needed; we need to focus on this article in its own context; see Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 13:16, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, Ed. I'll see if I can trace the old articles. I agree that we do have to look at this on its own merit (which I maintain it has!), but the extra comment probably relates to the fact that I must confess that I'm still slightly "peeved" that this has been forced to be done through the AfD process, rather than the normal channels employed on other Scout articles! Also, as it says on Wikipedia:Other stuff exists; "When used correctly though, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes." DiverScout (talk) 13:26, 9 October 2008 (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.
- 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 delete. MBisanz talk 22:55, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Peter J. King
- Peter J. King (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
At first glance, this article appears a credit to Wikipedia. It is is detailed, has many external links and mentions several respectable publications. It's thoroughly wikified. But Peter J. King is not notable according to WP:TEACH. There is not a single reliable source listed in the article. Every external link leads to something written by Peter King or his associates. There are no third-party reliable sources about Peter King. Nothing in the article shows that he is notable, merely that he is a living academic. Matt's talk 18:21, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep WP:PROF defines as satisfying inclusion requirements those academics who are "more notable than the average college instructor/professor". Dr. King has held lectureships in philosophy at several colleges of Oxford University, ranked by the (all-too) authoritative Philosophical Gourmet Report as the second best department in the English-speaking world. His work One Hundred Philosophers: The Life and Work of the World's Greatest Thinkers has been translated into several different languages, and his papers have been published in journal s of such prestige as Think and the Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society. That King is an academic of greater note than average should not be in doubt, to say the least. the skomorokh 19:22, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per WP:GNG and WP:Notability (persons). He is a respected reviewer. He has a notability that can be searched. Unesco.com, Experiencefestival.com. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I can see where you're coming from, but I'd be grateful if you could elaborate a little. What info are you getting from the Experience Festival link? I'm just seeing WP mirrors. Also, note that Dr King holds copyright to the UNESCO article, so there's still not a single third-party RS. The Human Nature review is a useful find, but do you think one book review is enough for notability? Matt's talk 21:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- His views are so respected that he was invited to write an article for UNESCO. No surprise he retains the copyright. He is a respected reviewer. These sources speak toward his notability and with conjunction with the points epresented by User:skomorokh show he is qualified per WP:Prof. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 15:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. He's a stipendiary lecturer at Pembroke College[11], i.e. he's not a college fellow, and he's listed on the staff list of the philosophy department under "Researchers, Temporary Lecturers and College Fellows" [12], below the 70+ "Senior Staff" and the 20 "Permanent and/or Senior Postholders in other Faculties, Colleges etc". This implies he's paid by the college (not the university) to give college tutorials (not university lectures) and doesn't have an office in the philosophy faculty building. I see no sign he fulfils any of the nine criteria at WP:TEACH. If his one book is notable (not that i'm sure it is), there could be an article on the book. Qwfp (talk) 20:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. (by M.R.Forrester). —David Eppstein (talk) 23:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- weak delete does not meet WP:PROF in my humble opinion, there have been no reviews of his book in the mainstream press, nor has he been called upon to comment there and there are no mentions of him.[13] He has written essays/contributed to a few books, but is neither well-known to the public in the slightest, not the head of a department at a university. Plenty of people have a Ph.D and are lecturers, they are not noteworthy unless they are a head of a university department or something, or have popularised their ideas and had them commented upon to a more than average for the field amount in WP:RS.Sticky Parkin 01:59, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no major research publications, and teaching at a notable college does not make one notable--no matter how important the college. Qwpf seems to sum up the situation properly. DGG (talk) 04:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- delete per Qwfp & DGG. Pete.Hurd (talk) 05:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per the detailed analyses of Qwpf and DGG. --Crusio (talk) 07:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, per QWFP and DGG. If we were to keep this primarily on the basis of one book "One hundred philosophers..." (which seems to be a book of a reference nature rather than of novel research), I would want to see more substantial and explicit evidence of its importance and influence. Nsk92 (talk) 10:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep -- He appears just about to meet the criteria. Several of the works listed appear (contrary a statement above) to be in academic periodicals. I suspect that the arguemtn as to paymetn by college/university is a spurious one for Oxford and Cambridge, and is merely the result of their unusual structrue. Note: the subject is a namesake of mine, but unrelated. I have no conflict of interest. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- query I've been looking through Google scholar [14] for evidence of academic impact, ie evidence that he meets criterion #1 of WP:PROF, but havn't seen any so far. Can you provide evidence that his work has had a notable impact on the work of other scholars? Or suggest another criterion met in WP:PROF? Pete.Hurd (talk) 15:59, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for joining the debate; it's fun to have a Peter King discussing Peter King! But I'd like to back up Qwfp's point about the uni/college thing. An Oxbridge university lecturer is a senior, permanent position. A college lecturer is a the lowest rung in the hierarchy, renewed on an annual or termly basis, and can be a doctoral student (as was the case for Dr King). In North American English, a teaching assistant. Cf. this discussion and some examples. Matt's talk 13:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep --- I'm coming down to keep on this one, but mostly because I don't want a user named "peterkingiron" to be a reason to keep an article about "Peter J King" -- but in all seriousness, the article looks good and helpful to me.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Needs some expanding to show the impact of philosophy work - between the website and writings but I see this as a borderline keep because it has gaps and the writing could be better. I don't fault those who are unaware it's better to overref and bludgeon the reader with the obvious in the lede - these are then WP:Problems to be fixed. -- Banjeboi 20:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, does not meet WP:PROF or any other standard. His work is not widely cited (figures on GS are single-digit). Association with Oxford colleges is casual, and in any event notability is not inherited. I'm hoping to see a higher-quality decision on this AfD, in comparison to some of the "no consensus" decisions we sometimes get when there are several keep votes: in this instance, as I see it not a single keep vote here gives an argument that is both (1) true and (2) relevant to WP:PROF or some other standard of WP:N. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:50, 10 October 2008 (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.
England Proposed deletions
no articles proposed for deletion at this time