Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neighbours From Hell in Britain

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 no consensus. Sourcing also seems loads better than when article was nominated. Neil ╦ 09:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neighbours From Hell in Britain

Neighbours From Hell in Britain (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Delete This article seems to have been created without due attention to WP:COI by a single purpose editor directly related to the topic. I also cannot see how the topic meets WP:NOTE. A single reference has been posted to halt speedy deletion (which is fair enough, obviously the matter merits full discussion), but somehow I doubt if a single, passing, reference in the Property pages of the Daily Telegraph, two years ago, constitutes true, encyclopaedic, notability? --User:Zeraeph 01:44, 27 July 2007

  • Comment This nom was malformed, I fixed it. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 01:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per lack of sourcing - Google news turns up nada Corpx 03:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Additional References have been added to the article page and there are more to follow over the next 24 hours. NFHiB 15:15, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment All of the references are still just passing mentions of the site; WP:NOTE asks for 'significant coverage' which addresses the subject directly in detail, and I don't think any of these refs do that.MartinBrook talk 21:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is a well-known support group that is regularly mentioned in UK media (e.g. [1]), and which is frequently listed by official government sources as the best way of getting advice on this kind of issue (e.g. [2]]). I fail to see the relevance of the age of the source, or a google news search (which would, I believe, only find articles from the last month or two). JulesH 11:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - well sourced article. Addhoc 11:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Addhoc (Mind meal 11:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC))
  • Delete COI, only mentioned in passing Will (talk) 13:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak delete coverage is mostly just passing mentions on BBC and in newspaper articles. MartinBrook talk 14:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC
  • Comment - I am continuing to add more appropriate referencing to the article to demonstrate that this organisation is worthy of a continued reference on WikiPedia and more references will be added as they are found online (where an online and verifiable link currently exists). NFHiB 15:15, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment I have struck my concerns about conflict of interest, it seems to me that they do not apply here. I have seen many people create accounts to create articles about their own topics, but I have never seen another editor in such a case take a step back, LOOK at the policies and guidelines suggested to him and make the effort to adapt to Wikipedia impartially and with WP:NPOV. --Zeraeph 19:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
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.