Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/England

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Points of interest related to England on Wikipedia Portal – Category – WikiProject – Stubs – Deletions

Deletion Sorting Project
Project page (talk) Lists (by ABC) Lists (by topic)
AfD: Today, Yesterday edit · changes

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.

You can help maintain the list on this page:

• To add a new AfD discussion (once it has already been opened on WP:AFD):

• 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. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
• You can also tag the AfD by adding

{{subst:delsort|England}}<small>—~~~~</small>

to it, which will inform users that it has been listed here.

• There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

• Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
• You can also add and remove links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to England.

Please note that adding an AfD to, or removing it from, this page does not add it to, or 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.

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 this page

• See also: Wikipedia:English Wikipedians' notice board

Contents 1 England 1.1 Scarborough Athletic F.C. season 2008–09 1.2 Kidson Force 1.3 Hemingbrough United 1.4 Rayat London College Club 1.5 Lianna Fowler 1.6 King's Lynn in popular culture 2 England Proposed deletions

[edit] England

[edit] Scarborough Athletic F.C. season 2008–09

Scarborough Athletic F.C. season 2008–09 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

An article about a season for club playing in the 10th level of English football, which I do not believe is necessary (see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cray Wanderers F.C. season 2009-10). пﮟოьεԻ 57 17:54, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. пﮟოьεԻ 57 17:54, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. GiantSnowman 18:19, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Completely unnecessary page, seems to just be a hobbyist article. Parkerparked (talk) 18:20, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - creator should buy some webspace Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:01, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - probably admissible only on Scarborough Athletic's own wiki. – PeeJay 19:02, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:58, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:58, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete as fancruft. No objection to linking to Scarborough Athletic's wiki from the main Scarborough FC article. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 10:10, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I must say that I only mentioned that Scarborough Athletic wiki as a hypothetical situation :-) – PeeJay 15:12, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Cs-wolves(talk) 05:41, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Kidson Force

Kidson Force (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

I have nominated this page for deletion because I believe it was created in error. The creator was referring to Kisdon Force in the same area on the River Swale, and I believe that Kidson Force does not exist. Mick Knapton (talk) 08:27, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

It gets several hits from Google including Yorkshire Walks so appears to be correct rather than Kisdon Force which is further east. Keith D (talk) 13:17, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

OK Keith, I think it is a typo in that article, as the photo labelled "Kidson Force near Keld" is actually of Kisdon Force (I've been there). Its a similar photo to the top one in the Wikipedia article for Kisdon Force taken by me showing the main cascade and the top one in the background. However if you think Kidson Force exists I respect your decision but it is certainly not marked on the large scale Ordnance Survey maps. Mick Knapton (talk) 21:03, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:43, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
• Redirect to Kisdon Force as a likely misspelling. Note that the reference cited in the article uses the spelling "Kisdon." Deor (talk) 17:39, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
• Redirect to Kisdon Force per Deor. Thryduulf (talk) 17:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. These are two separate waterfalls. Kisdon force is at 54° 24′ 14.35″ N, 2° 9′ 26.26″ ;, Kidson Force is at 54° 24′ 4″ N, 2° 10′ 0″ W. No need for a redirect. Mjroots (talk) 09:29, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment on the above: ::That co-ordinate for Kidson Force is almost 500 metres South West of the River Swale on the B6270 road near Thorns Farm, how can it be a waterfall on the River Swale with a co-ordinate of almost 500 metres away from that River. Try looking on Ordnances Survery Get a Map. Mick Knapton (talk) 09:47, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Reply: Using the coord link on the page, then following the Geograph link, it brings us here], just to the west of a small stream where I'd suggest that the waterfall is. Mjroots (talk) 09:56, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Quite an interesting link that, it shows six photographs of Kisdon Force and one of "Kidston Force" which is obviously a picture of Kisdon Force. Why does the article say a "Small waterfall on the River Swale" if its on a small side stream. The photograph in the article does not look like a small side stream. Why not just admit it that its a spelling mistake. Ever been to Swaledale, I go there regularly. Mick Knapton (talk) 10:08, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I may have driven through Swaledale at some point. I was going by the coords given in the separate articles. I accept that I may be wrong here, needs a local expert. I'll ask at WP Yorkshire. Mjroots (talk) 10:14, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the interesting discussion Mjroots. My final point at this time, is that if it does exist and is not shown on the large scale Ordnance Survey map it could be deemed as not notable and could be deleted on Notability. All the other waterfalls on the Swale around Keld are marked, even the small East Gill Force is marked as a "Falls". Regards Mick Knapton (talk) 10:50, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Rayat London College Club

Rayat London College Club (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

non notable organization - speedy deleted this morning and recreated by the original editor noq (talk) 18:50, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Delete I'm the {{db-website}} nominator of the first version, the article doesn't meet the citeria for organizations and websites. 4 Google hits with the only source - Wikipedia. This is a clear candidate for speedy deletion. Note to the creator of the article: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and included sujects should be notable. I've informed you properly about rules at this website, just check the links. I'm sorry, and good luck with your project. --Vejvančický (talk) 21:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete I don't believe that the article's content even qualifies as a credible claim of significance, so A7.--Talain (talk) 21:58, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

:Keep Its a information forum for RLC students and international students, its in growth stage and will develop with the passage of time. If its still not notable what changes shall I make to keep it on wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.239.13.98 (talk) 22:37, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment If you becomes notable in the future, then the article can simply be recreated once independent and reliable verification of notability is possible, even if it is deleted now.--Talain (talk) 22:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. If the club's "in its growth stage" it is almost certainly non-notable. Wikipedia is for articles that are notable now, not articles that someone thinks will be notable (and, to be honest, most college clubs will never be remotely notable). Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 06:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails WP:CLUB. Looks more like an attempt to gain facebook fans than anything else. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:25, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - no coverage to establish notability and the article itself is promotional in nature. -- Whpq (talk) 16:30, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Keep Its an active club with a hough potential to grow, it is no only notable national (RLC existing and potential students) it is also notable for international students and potential students as RLC (Rayat London College) is part of the Rayat group which runs education business not only in UK but in India with number of colleges. Rayat-Bahara Group webssite—Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.239.13.98 (talk) 13:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Then you probably want to read the guidelines for notability of clubs and why arguments like "huge potential to grow" carry no weight. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 22:04, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Lianna Fowler

Lianna Fowler (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Only her notability in Britain's Next Top Model and failing orphaned. It was prodded less than five weeks ago [1]. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 08:23, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. I always consider the phrase "Up and coming" as a strong indicator that they haven't arrived at notability yet. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:55, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
• Weak keep. She did win a series of a what is a notable reality show. I am sure that it can be referenced. The winners of the other series all have articles. I agree about "up and coming" being a very bad sign. I have removed that. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Digression: I just put "up and coming" in the search box. It is a great way to find stuff that is either poorly written or just not notable. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:28, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:02, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:02, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
• Note: Eboni Stocks is also nominated for deletion, is less fewer notability than Fowler. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 14:50, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
• Weak keep. This is a borderline WP:BLP1E. Only thing that saves it is that it's going to confuse readers if some winners have articles and others don't on a arbitrary basis on which articles happen to have been taken to AfD. I'd rather a decision was taken on articles as a whole, and reasonable outcomes could be: 1) There is enough coverage of winners for all winners to be presumed notable; 2) Winning doesn't confer enough notability in its own right but some of the winners became notable by other means (in which case the template needs to say "notable winners" instead of just winners; or 3) non of them are notable independently of the programme. Should we go for 2) or 3), merging all the winners into a single article would be a reasonable compromise. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 17:22, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:31, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. Britain's Next Top Model is not Big Brother or Britain's Got Talent, and does not gain as wide an audience. As a reality television show, it is broadcast on Living TV, which is significantly smaller than the likes of the BBC, ITV, or even Channel Five. Furthermore, the British version of the show is not as popular as its American equivalent. As such, while the show is notable - It's a television program, after all - The winner is not unless they have achieved notability elsewhere. Esteffect (talk) 02:50, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• Regarding other winners, Lauren McAvoy seems to have appeared on a variety of other shows after winning and so in my opinion rightfully has an article. Lianne did not achieve this - She won in 2006, not recently. Lucy Emily Ratcliffe and Alex Evans (model) - The other winners - Seem to be the same. My solution would be to delete the articles of Fowler, Ratcliffe and Evans and mention their careers in the main article, whilst keeping McAvoy's as is. Esteffect (talk) 02:54, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• Winning recently confers no more notability than winning several years ago, but I'll take your word on the rest of it. Merge into main article (or separate article for winners) along with the others except McAvoy. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 10:16, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• My point about the fact she wasn't a recent winner is that she's had time to gain notability away from the show, and apparently hasn't done so. Esteffect (talk) 15:01, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Abigail Clancy has been more notability than Fowler, although she didn't win the series, she had covers in FHM and appearing in several television series. The American and Australian counterparts are bigger notable than the British series, although it seen more in an internet forum sites. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 06:03, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable, single claim is a tv show that since she's been unable to gain any notability on her own. Fuzbaby (talk) 17:24, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] King's Lynn in popular culture

King's Lynn in popular culture (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

While King's Lynn is notable per WP:NOTE, the subject of this article, King's Lynn in popular culture, isn't. It has been tagged to have anything significant moved to other articles for more than a year. See WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. There is also original research, see WP:OR. Drawn Some (talk) 20:11, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 20:18, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 20:18, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, unencyclopedic material that cannot be allowed into any other articles. In our referentially-based culture, this tiny handful of mentions does not indicate any kind of importance. And notability is based on reliable sources, which must be shown, not merely assumed to exist. Mintrick (talk) 20:18, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
• Merge any notable material into King's Lynn. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep or, better, merge any material to parent article. Some references will be notable, but not as a coherent subject. Sourcing will help. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:15, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
• Comment I hate these articles (x in popular culture, y in popular culture) but they do serve the purpose of stopping decent articles being choked with popkult cruft. I'm neutral on this but would rather not see a merge into the "parent" article. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 23:00, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete as a list of editor-chosen examples contrary to WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:OR. No hint that people have written about this subject in reliable sources. WillOakland (talk) 03:38, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
• Merge into the appropriate places in the main article. Not enough content for a separate article. DGG (talk) 04:33, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. This nomination raises a host of principal problems, the scope of Wikipedia, who can edit and contribute with what, WP:NOTPAPER etc, the usual slew, and likely the usual people commenting the ususal way. This article was spun-out from the King's Lynn paretn article 23 October 2008. No reason was offered, but likely it could be an attempt to purge contested, debated, and what some people think is "low quality" and "unecyclopaedic" in popular culture.... content into a separate article - aiming for an uncontroversial compromise. Perhaps somebody then will hit the delete button later, which turns out to be now. This principal issues is a recurring problem, and we achieve NOTHING by first spinning out content, and then merging in back. Personally, I dont like most of this "in popular culture" stuff, but as Jimbo has said, what shall we tell all those people who write about Pokemon etc, go write about nuclear physics instead? The procedure of spinning out the stuff is even endorsed in some guideline, if it prevents the article from achieving GA or FA status - and I think it is a good compromise that everybody should be able to live with. The scope of Wikipedia is so much broader than the elitist Encl. Brittanica etc, see NOTPAPER. So I would say keep, and ask the nominee not to nominate more of those articles for AfD and instead to start a centralized discussion (good luck!) where this issue belongs. Power.corrupts (talk) 10:51, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I am the nominator. Your smokescreen doesn't make the topic of this article, "King's Lynn in popular culture", notable, in fact, I could find not one source addressing it. WP:NOTE repeats over and over that the topic of an article must be notable. WP:ILIKEIT isn't a criteria for inclusion. Drawn Some (talk) 13:30, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Note - parallel discussion takes place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crash test dummies in popular culture. Power.corrupts (talk) 13:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
    • This principal issues is a recurring problem, and we achieve NOTHING by first spinning out content, and then merging in back. — Yes, exactly. The correct course of action is not to take the lazy route with bad content, of sweeping it under the rug, in the first place. Please read User:Uncle G/Cargo cult encyclopaedia article writing, and see from the examples what actually, in practice, stops this cycle from recurring, and has stopped it with many articles in the past. It requires work, a lot more than a copy and a paste, but unlike the lazy route it is provenly effective. Uncle G (talk) 19:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
• Merge per DGG. Useful information, but there is no where near enough to constitute a whole article. Bearian (talk) 15:19, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
• Merge to King's Lynn. Encyclopaedic but in the wrong place. References to popular culture almost always go into to main article unless the list is so long it wouldn't fit as a section in another particle, and I see not reason for an exception here. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:27, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete -- Many articles used to have a popular culture section that was a bucketthat collected a lot of trivial trash. Such sections were generally deleted a couple of years ago and WP has been better without them. This article should follow. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete in its current form. The subject lacks notability and the content consists of nothing but trivial details. ThemFromSpace 23:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
• Yet another fork by Mintrick, with content that xe didn't like erased from one article, and copied and pasted, without proper authorship attribution (in accordance with the requirements of our copyright licences), into a new article.

  The same rationale applies as before to Mitrick's previous forks: There's no reason to keep this fork; the content is already in the original article's edit history and can be restored directly from there in the normal way; this article's authorship is not correctly attributed in its edit history; this isn't a title that we need as a redirect; and the correct action for Mintrick to have taken in the first place was to address bad content in the article in which it stands, not take the lazy route of sweeping it under the rug like this. The same outcome should happen here as has happened so many times before: Delete.

  Please learn from this happening time and again to these creations of yours, Mintrick. There's a reason that User:Uncle G/Cargo cult encyclopaedia article writing is not short of examples from the many times that this pattern has repeated at AFD over the years. You are wasting a lot of people's time by taking the easy routes of sweeping things under the rug with all of these articles, rather than addressing bad content properly, by fixing it and writing good content. Uncle G (talk) 19:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• You'll notice that those supporting a keep or merge have not offered any reliable sources where someone has written about the subject. Instead, as usual, people are trying to make the subject notabile by mere acclamation. WillOakland (talk) 20:20, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] England Proposed deletions

no articles proposed for deletion at this time