Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Wales

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Deletion Sorting
Project

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Wales. 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:
  1. 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.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Wales|~~~~}} 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.
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 Wales. 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 United Kingdom.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
Purge page cache watch
Scan for Wales related AfDs

Scan for Wales related Prods
Scan for Wales related TfDs


Wales

[edit]

CEWC-Cymru

[edit]
CEWC-Cymru (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:ORG for lack of third party coverage. LibStar (talk) 02:26, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Culturenet Cymru

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

Culturenet Cymru was established as a company within the National Library of Wales for the purpose of creating a body that Welsh Government could fund outside of the NLW sponsorship arrangement, with a remit to develop online resources. The company was based in NLW, all the directors and officers were NLW staff, and the employees were subject to NLW regulations. The arrangement was wound up in 2016 and all of the projects were transferred directly into NLW. It was never independently notable, generating a couple of news articles (that I cannot now find) only when one employee, whose contract was terminated, alleged he had fixed an online poll they ran. That coverage did not explore the nature of the company, and my recollection is that the news media were directed to NLW itself. As such this is not notable and does not meet WP:NCORP. I was going to redirect to the NLW page but it is not mentioned there, and I do not feel a mention of the company is due there. Thus a redirect is not possible (no mention on the target page). I am therefore nominating here. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:51, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gareth Dennis

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

This article came up at ANI, due to an IP address making inappropriate edits, and on closer inspection I don't think that the subject is notable. The article asserts that he has lectured at a couple of academic institutions, but he doesn't appear to be currently employed at either of them, and that wouldn't constitute an WP:NPROF pass anyway. His dismissal from a railway engineering firm was covered in the national press, but WP:BLP1E. He has written a book, but the reviews I'm finding for that are written on activist websites, railway fan forums and the like - it's not an WP:NAUTHOR pass. That leaves us with the idea that he is notable because he is interviewed in the press from time to time about matters concerning railway transportation; I'm not persuaded that that constitutes notability for our purposes. He may become notable in the future, if his writing attracts significant critical attention, but to my mind this article is premature. Girth Summit (blether) 11:33, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Week redirect to Peter Hendy#Network Rail, where his sacking is covered. Despite enjoying his work, I have to agree that at present Dennis doesn't quite have enough coverage (per WP:BLP1E) to merit a standalone article (although I personally don't think he's too far off). Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 13:02, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Doesn't seem to pass author notability for "How Railways will fix the Future", this is the only sort of "critical review" I could find [1] and I'm not sure if that even counts as a RS. Getting fired isn't terribly notable. I don't see him passing academic notability either. I'm not sure what's left for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 14:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Just to be clear, I think trains are great, and the subject's advocacy and passion are probably for the good. But being interviewed a lot, getting sacked for maybe not choosing his words carefully enough, and writing one book with apparently one review (in something called Counterfire, "a revolutionary socialist organisation committed to transforming our society from one based on the profit motive to one built on the needs of working people" [2]), aren't even close to notability material. It's worth pointing out that the subject himself has edited the article recently, so we can assume that any worthwhile sources are already present in the article. EEng 16:20, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to be fair, as far as I can tell, Dennis only made two edits in August, which amounted to a change of the nationality of his father, which in the timeline of this article doesn't seem very recent. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 16:30, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I wasn't implying there was anything wrong with his edits. My point was simply that you can count on the subject to have added to the article any missing significant sources about himself, if any existed. (Or he might have raised them on the talk page.) EEng 16:47, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think we can assume that. If there was an article on me, I probably wouldn't edit it or its talk page point blank as far as possible. If there was something bad enough that I felt I did need to do something I would likely stick to the talk page etc but whatever I did, would still only edit in relation to these important issues. And no matter how much else I felt was missing I likely wouldn't do anything about it, not even posting sources on the talk page. I'm not sure if I'd worry too much about the nationality of my father myself, but it can be a big deal for some. Nil Einne (talk) 14:14, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:42, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Girth Summit I'm requesting this because I want to catch the most developed version of this article if it dissappears, given that its currently covered in the news it seems likely it will change in the next days. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Cummings (talk • contribs) 09:38, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, whoever closes the discussion can make that call; I guess it could be draftified/userfied and then a redirect put in its current title place if that's the decision. Girth Summit (blether) 15:45, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
John Cummings, when the time comes, make a request at WP:REFUND for the text to be emailed . EEng 18:19, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that waiting for a deletion decision is best. A copy/paste drafting would lack the version history, which might hold information that's useful in the future. A page move isn't appropriate during the AfD discussion. But that's essentially the best outcome for @John Cummings. I just !voted delete, but this is a sincere comment. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 00:05, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Worsley

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Jonathan Worsley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. At best, minor notability for an incident involving Michael van Gerwen but nothing else. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 12:19, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CEWC Northern Ireland

[edit]
CEWC Northern Ireland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I could not find significant coverage when searching under short name or full name. The 2nd source is a 1 line mention in a book.

Also nominating CEWC-Cymru for similar reasons. Both articles fail WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 02:46, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. There are two different nominations here. And my own recommendations are slightly different for both. Neither especially cut/dried. In terms of the:
  • CEWC-Cymru title, I think this should just be merged and redirected. To Welsh Centre for International Affairs. As, per the text and (granted primary) reference, the former charity now forms part of that organisation. And hence is a reasonable WP:ATD-R.
  • CEWC Northern Ireland title, I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that this should also be merged and redirected. To Council for Education in World Citizenship. Also as WP:ATD-R. Where the target would be updated so it is no longer a DAB page. But an article covering the "parent" org. I propose this because while, per nom, I do not see that the "CEWC Northern Ireland" org has/had independent notability, the "parent" org perhaps does. Much of the content at the Northern Ireland article could be merged to Council for Education in World Citizenship. With that title (no longer DAB) expanded to cover the concept as a whole. That org being the subject of significant coverage (as the primary topic) in at least one book and several journal articles. Indicating possible notability. There's certainly enough coverage for more than a stub (covering the English, Welsh and Northern Ireland "branches" of the org)...
My 2x cents anyway... Guliolopez (talk) 21:09, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. User:LibStar, this is not a proper bundled nomination, you might have tagged CEWC-Cymru but this nomination isn't formatted properly. If you wish it to be included, please review WP:AFD instructions for multiple page nominations.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:23, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will nominate CEWC-Cymru separately now. LibStar (talk) 02:25, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Guliolopez, a new AfD is set up here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CEWC-Cymru, you may wish to copy your comment across. LibStar (talk) 02:27, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Thanks for the ping @LibStar:. I've struck and moved my !vote on what to do with the Welsh charity title (CEWC Cymru) to the new AfD. In terms of the Northern Irish charity title (CEWC Northern Ireland), and for clarity, my recommendation remains to merge/redirect to Council for Education in World Citizenship. Guliolopez (talk) 11:13, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deeside College

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

Badly written, barely sourced promotional article about a college that ceased to exist in 2013. At best some elements could be transferred over to a history section in Coleg Cambria. If you look at this edit and compare the section headings with those in this wayback machine snapshot of the college's history, you will see that it is very likely that the content is straight copy/paste copyvio - even though the original content was not archived by wayback machine and is therefore likely lost. However, you can see 100% that the list of college principals is lifted word for word from the the college history page. The content is highly suspect and a proper analysis might show a drastic revdel is needed. Best option is just to go ahead and delete the article. 10mmsocket (talk) 21:37, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Wales. 10mmsocket (talk) 21:37, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, badly written is not a WP:DELREASON (WP:CONTN). It clearly has the history and can also be converted to a contemporary campus article. Dissolved colleges don't lose notability. Merging all the colleges into Coleg Cambria would be messy as it is a multi-campus merged college, and like merging all of Cambridge's colleges into Cambridge Uni. DankJae 21:48, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you re-read my reasoning above as I just edited it. Sorry. 10mmsocket (talk) 21:55, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Would WP:TNT apply? If it is specifically this version of the article needing deletion based on quality/copyvio issues, but the topic remains notable? Ideally needing a full re-write or re-do?
    I'd argue it is still notable, regardless of when it ceased, and while it may not be a separate college anymore, it operates a distinct campus and programme within Coleg Cambria. Always was on my to-do list to convert to a campus and history article. DankJae 22:07, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Blow it up and start over would be wonderful. In fact I'd help you re-write it from scratch. 10mmsocket (talk) 22:21, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional delete on the basis for re-write WP:TNT, but not on notability concerns (otherwise keep), oppose any merge. Del based on lots of potential copyvio revisions and mass unsourced content. Additionally, the article may be converted into the contemporary campus, meaning a re-write may have little resemblance with the current, as well as the sheer amount of review needed for the current unsourced content, so best TNT. Any links to the deleted article should be kept, in anticipation of a revival. Additionally lots of the content dates to a 2010 version (or before), so the sources may be harder to find today for that in-depth content and haven't been added for over a decade. However, still open to a keep and re-write, if there's agreement for the current version to be massively cut if not deleted. DankJae 22:53, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 23:51, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment TNT is an essay and not policy, but this may be an excellent case for using it anyway (and as IAR is policy, if that is an agreed outcome that improved the encyclopaedia, the fact it is an essay does not mitigate against its use). However, before !voting to delete with no prejudice against immediate recreation, could we sense check the notability? What reliable, independent and secondary sources cover the college from which the new article would be written? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:37, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sirfurboy, here's some indepth ones on bits of its history, [3][4][5][6], as well as the main college source right now [7]. There are many news articles on various aspects of the college from the BBC at least, [8], and likely other news sites.[9] Likely some scattered/niche history around too, although the years passed have made it a bit harder to find.
    A re-written article may also combine the contemporary campus it is today post-merger, possibly renamed Coleg Cambria, Deeside? But nonetheless to avoid the copyvio issues and over-reliance on one source, won't necessarily be as long or in-depth as the article is now. But surely enough?
    Yes TNT is an essay, I also used one del reason, but recognise it isn't clear-cut. DankJae 01:45, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per WP:TNT but allow recreation of an article without copyvio. However, that new article should probably be Coleg Cambria, Deeside, which would contain the history of Deeside College and its former names, Kelsterton College of technology and Flintshire Technology college. Usually when we cover a successor school or college, the article is named for the extant institution and contains the information of the previous institutions in its history. We would redirect the former names to the successor. If the editorial decision is to do it this way, then Deeside College should be recreated as a redirect to Coleg Cambria. But because of the copyvio, it should be deleted first.
    Looking at the sources from DankJae, the first two cover Deeside college under that name. Newspaper coverage needs some caution regarding whether coverage is secondary and independent, but that article seems to meet SIGCOV, and is arguably secondary. Independence is unknown. The Coflein source would be good enough under WP:NBUILD for the building, but not under NORG for the organisation. However it is indicative. The book, Further education in Wales, is not independent. The other book, Clwyd: Denbighshire and Flintshire, is independent and secondary. It would not meet WP:CORPDEPTH if we were being very strict about this. But, on balance, we have a range of sources over a long period, some significant coverage, and a college that has existed under several names for many years and with a building that is recognised in a national database. I believe this is enough to demonstrate notability for a combined article. Thanks to DankJae for finding the sources. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:26, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Meets WP:GNG. AfD is not cleanup and it clearly deserves to have an article under this title. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:15, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Except if we keep it we have to revdel the whole thing. What exactly would we be keeping? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:19, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Currently 96.3% Copyvio? So what next? if kept. DankJae 19:01, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just reduce to a stub. Simple! -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:14, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    OK but the answer is that we are not actually keeping anything. I don't see the benefit of keeping and revdelling to a stub over deletion with immediate re-creation under either this name of or as Coleg Cambria, Deeside. Except that if we do change the name to the current institution we would immediately have to start an RM for the empty stub. That would be a waste of time. So what we need to decide is whether the recreation has this name (its former name) or whether we should write about the successor institution, with its history of the former names (3 of them) contained in that article. If we do the latter, TNT is better for the encyclopaedia. If we choose the former name, I expect it is entirely within the gift of the closer as to which is chosen. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:38, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:22, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marshall James

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

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 18:14, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Darts, and Wales. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:20, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: as a former WDF World Championship runner-up and World Masters semi-finalist, there appears to be a great deal of significant coverage of the subject in Welsh (Llanelli Star, South Wales Echo) and other (Liverpool Echo, Aberdeen Evening Express) papers, but a lot of it is hidden behind a paywall. If I can get access to these papers later in the week I'll assess the coverage and update my vote; if anyone else has access to them it may be worth a look. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 18:52, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Registering a keep vote in light of the below comment, but will update further if I get granted access to the newspaper archive for the aforementioned articles. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 21:53, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Significant coverage here and although my BNA access has expired, here's a story titled "Top of the World: Marshall James", which is almost certainly sigcov. He was second-best at the world championships! BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:01, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Is a six paragraph article that summarises a six year career really "significant coverage"? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 21:21, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Is a 300+ word article on the then-second-best darts player in the world, as well as what appears to be a feature on 'Top of the World: Marshall James', count for notability? Of course it does. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:41, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You keep describing him as being the "second-best darts player in the world" and this is just categorically not true. Are you seriously suggesting he was better than Phil Taylor? Two articles do not make significant coverage, especially when one of which you have admitted you have no idea what it even is. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 23:02, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You keep describing him as being the "second-best darts player in the world" and this is just categorically not true. – I'll admit I'm not super familiar with darts, but didn't James finish as the runner-up at the World Championships? Wouldn't being runner-up at the World Championships be second best in the world? And two articles can absolutely be significant coverage; the general notability guideline says that's all that's required for notability (two pieces of coverage). What do you think the odds are that a story titled, "Top of the World: Marshall James", is not significant coverage? BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:11, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    He finished runner-up at a (not the) World Championship and then proceeded to do absolutely nothing of note ever again. Does a darts player from Llanelli having potentially one article in a Llanelli newspaper, and a six paragraph article on a darts website, really count for notability? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 00:00, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Does having significant coverage from two independent outlets for a runner-up at a World Darts Championship count for notability? Absolutely if you go by GNG, which only requires two significant sources. BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:27, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So, to keep up-to-date. That's one "significant" source. And one source you freely admit you haven't read. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 00:37, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We're allowed to use common sense. The odds that both the 'Top of the World' source is insignificant and that there's no further coverage of him anywhere is incredibly small, especially given that Ser! has found paywalled articles in four additional newspapers. That you're unable to answer whether you've done any sort of WP:BEFORE search at all for over one hundred darts articles you've rapidly nominated or proposed for deletion is concerning as well. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:04, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Nice personal attack there. Not content with doing it on my own talk page you now choose to do it here too! All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 01:14, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Pointing out that you've refused on three occasions to answer the basic question of whether or not you've done a BEFORE search is not a personal attack... BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:20, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You assuming that I haven't, and constantly repeating the claim, is a personal attack. What on earth makes you think I haven't? Because you found that the British library has an article in the Llanelli Post about him from 27 years ago? 🤣 All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 09:02, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @ItsKesha: What on earth makes you think I haven't? – because I asked "Are you doing any sort of WP:BEFORE search at all?" – and you responded that the articles are old, and then I asked "Are you doing any sort of WP:BEFORE search at all?" – and you responded that I need to AGF – and then I asked "Are you doing any sort of WP:BEFORE search at all?" – and you told me to get off your talk page – and then here you called it a personal attack, and when asked ... you responded that "What on earth makes you think I haven't? 🤣" – this absolute refusal to answer the question while nominating / proposing hundreds of articles for deletion is disruptive. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:12, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    OK 👍 All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 01:14, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is the entirety of the BNA article, content on James bolded:

    [D]arts ace Marshall James added another trophy to his impressive collection recently - after winning a world championship. Marshall was a member of the Wales short man squad that won the world championship in Perth, Sydney, recently. Another player from the area Eric Burden was also in the side with the others being Sean Palfrey of Newport and Martin Phillips from North Wales. With 35 countries taking part Wales beat a star studded England side in final by nine legs to six. Wales came away with three gold medals and one bronze. Marshall lost in the semi-final of the Embassy Gold Cup singles on Saturday to world number 1 Mervin King 2-1. Another Welsh player Shaun [sic] Palfrey went on to take the title beating King 2-0 in the final. Marshall was recognized for his achievement this week when he was chosen as winner of the Walter Hughes Cup, one of the Brin Isaac Memorial Fund awards.


    I'm not convinced ~4 sentences in an un-bylined hyper-local blurb announcing his darts competition results for that week counts toward GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 18:15, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral - My main concern here is that DartsNews is not obviously a reliable source and some work needs to be done to establish whether it is or isn't. My real sticking point on any bio article is "can we write a reliably-sourced encyclopaedia article, and not simply a database-entry, about the subject", and if Dartsnews is reliable then probably we can. BeanieFan11 - any views on this? FOARP (talk) 10:56, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I really need to figure out how to get re-subscribed to the BNA; there appeared to be a decent bit of coverage there (highly likely enough to write a reliably-sourced encyclopaedia article, and not simply a database-entry, about the subject, I'd say)... As for Dartsnews, they appear to have an editing staff. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:22, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:59, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep - Mostly just on AGF, give-keep-a-chance grounds. DartsNews gives sigcov but feels like a peripheral source even if it is a WP:NEWSORG. There is no BIO equivalent of WP:AUD and local coverage shouldn't be excluded entirely, so I see no reason to dismiss coverage just because it was in a Llanelli newspaper, but it is also borderline for WP:SIGCOV. The real question for me is "can we have an article that isn't just sports-stats", and we just about can. Since the internet archive is now working again (albeit slow) I did a little search there and I see that, except for mentioning him a couple of times when discussing other players, he isn't listed in this book about the top 50 darts players, so I think that safely answers the question of how great this guy was. FOARP (talk) 22:33, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

National Assembly for Wales (Representation of the People) Order 2007

[edit]
National Assembly for Wales (Representation of the People) Order 2007 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There are no secondary sources on the for this page. There are no secondary sources on the specific subject of this page, as far as I can see. There is a page on Legislative Competence Order, which I think would provide a good redirect destination. SqrtLog (talk) 17:22, 20 October 2024 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE. ✗plicit 13:48, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - I see no reason to remove it? There is useful content here. I will go look for some secondary sourcing and coverage, but as an article it sticks very closely to the original LCO. Nothing is lost by leaving it. Flatthew (talk) 13:23, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Have been reading about the order. It appears it essentially governed Conduct in National Assembly elections between 2007 and 2020. That is quite clearly significant enough to be retained. I do not know how whoever wrote this page managed to downplay it's significance as substantially as they did, but I'm working on resolving that now. Flatthew (talk) 13:49, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 17:23, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Not sure what content here would make another article more informative or is otherwise notable enough for inclusion - it seems the order's changes are almost entirely making it consistent with or enabling changes made elsewhere. I think it would be sufficient to include the order in the LCO list (and a redirect would then be appropriate), but doesn't need its own section there. There may be merit to an article on the original 1999 LCO or the 2003 version (if it changed anything major), but I don't think they'd use anything substantial from here. I'll admit I'm not terribly familiar with the conduct of Welsh elections or Welsh politics generally but I'm pretty comfortable assuming that whether a returning officer for an election needs to reside in the constituency for which they are responsible isn't more of a hot button issue there than is suggested by the dearth of secondary sources. Chaste Krassley (talk) 21:46, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 22:38, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Legislative Competence Order (or any other appropriate article) per voorts. I don't find sufficient information for it to be a standalone article, but it could be kept nonetheless in a seperate article. Takipoint123 (talk) 22:41, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Others

[edit]

Categories

Deletion reviews

Miscellaneous

Proposed deletions

Redirects

Templates

See also

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Wales&oldid=1256077746"