Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Association of British Counties (2nd nomination)

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. (non-admin closure) Peter303x (talk) 01:29, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Association of British Counties[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This was AfD'd in 2006 and kept, but the discussion's was not great IMO, at least by today's standards.

This advocacy group does not appear notable, which is apparent by the state of and citations in the article which are mostly to its own website, or PDF reports, or quotations of its members from debates, etc. The entire article is written based on primary sources, for which it has had a maintenance tag since 2009. Of the decent secondary sources, there are two BBC links which only contain passing mentions. [1] (3 sentences!) [2]

Doing a WP:BEFORE search has the same issue (Google News) -- some aside coverage in a paragraph of the source of quotes from a member, but nothing substantial. This does not meet GNG much less WP:NORG; an article based on reliable secondary sources cannot be written. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:24, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:24, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:24, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article's references mix together references to its own website and references from reliable sources, including The Times and less exciting but still reliable ones like the Northern Echo. The online archives of The Times are behind a paywall. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:57, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Checked on gale.com; the first The Times cite is a diary entry saying "The Association of British Counties will be toasting Ridley at its inaugural conference next Saturday." which is the only mention of the organisation. The other The Times Diary entry does not mention the org at all. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:25, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is also The Times article "Battle to revive Rutland joined by lobbyist" from 20 July 1991 which mentions the organisation's formation, membership and campaigning Piecesofuk (talk) 19:47, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What page? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:12, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
page 6 Piecesofuk (talk) 22:15, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, search on this archive browser is a bit lousy. That's one source with decent coverage, although minus the quotes there is hardly enough for a whole article, but more like a paragraph in the historic countries article in a section about campaign groups. Are there other significant independent secondary sources? (WP:MULTSOURCES says A single significant independent source is almost never sufficient for demonstrating the notability of an organization. and WP:ORGDEPTH says the trivial sources with insignificant coverage don't count.) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:25, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's 30+ hits on the British Newspaper Archive (although the BNA doesn't have many recent newspapers) https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/search/results/1950-01-01/1999-12-31?basicsearch=%22association%20of%20british%20counties%22&exactsearch=false&retrievecountrycounts=false&page=1 There's about twice that number on ProQuest which you can access via the Wikipedia Library. There's a similar number of hits if you search the gov.uk domain. I don't see how deleting this page improves Wikipedia. Piecesofuk (talk) 16:38, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Many of those hits are the same thing (eg Association of British Counties who care about the problem nationally), or completely passing mentions (Mr Butcher, Conservative member for Coventry south-west, is president of the Association of British Counties), and of the selection I checked none are substantial coverage on the advocacy organisation itself. They're mentions, and likewise a mention may be appropriate at Historic counties of England. It improves the encyclopaedia: a) because WP:NORG is not met, which means that b) an article based on independent reliable secondary sources cannot be written, as required by policy and as evidenced here, with a primary sources maintenance tag for over a decade. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:43, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Certainly appears to pass WP:GNG. Plenty of coverage. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:20, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:54, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I shall refrain from voting but will just comment. The people behind this seem to want to go back to the borders that existed before 1965, but there is nothing particularly historic about the pre-1965 borders. It would make more sense to return to the pre-1844 borders, but although the authors of the page seem to know that there was a revision in 1844 they don't seem to take it very seriously. I noticed that because their map clearly shows the Rame peninsula in Cornwall (as it is now), not in Devon (as it was then). Athel cb (talk) 13:15, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's the problem with irredentism everywhere - the question of how far we go back. The answer is usually that we go back to whenever the entity on behalf of which the claim is being made was at its largest extent, but when a claim is being made on behalf of multiple entities claiming the same territory it simply leads to it disappearing up its own backside. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:07, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep despite their edit war on place articles to insert Historic Counties in the open sentence of each lead. This article is important to identify who the key ABC editors are that are engaged in this disruptive partisan activity Jonnyspeed20 (talk) 17:26, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Except, it's written based on primary sources, so it's arguably not even true content, and is probably self-serving. It can always redirect to a more relevant section somewhere. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:55, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I've read the comments by Jonnyspeed20 on relevant talk pages, and looked at specific articles (such as Kingston upon Thames) I thoroughly agree with Jonnyspeed20 that the activities of some editors are disruptive. An admin needs to look into the matter. Athel cb (talk) 08:33, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The first two sections of the article, Definitions... and Aims... amount to nothing more than free publicity for the group. The Activities section explains what the group's position was during a November 2007 campaign. Addresses and signage is a list of trivia 'successes' that are not even attributed to the group, but to the wider "traditional counties movement". Party political support: none; no party is claimed to support the group, not even UKIP and the English Democrats (the best that can be said is that their thinking appears similar). Parliamentary support: almost none; a random collection of issues that may be of interest to the group, but with which they were mostly not involved. Commentary: ditto - simply a list of quotes that they approve of. Affiliates: most appear to have been short-lived groups that no longer exist and are sourced to dead links; several never had any connection and are mentioned for their 'similar aims'; those that do exist don't seem to mention the group. Publications: entirely self-serving promotion. MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:08, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with all that and now favour deletion. I have done some edits to the page to remove the worst points, but probably deletion is the only answer. Athel cb (talk) 12:54, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:02, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, Mainly because of the two BBC articles, I find that this association barely has enough coverage.Jackattack1597 (talk) 11:33, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The coverage actually needs to be substantial, see WP:ORGDEPTH. Two passing mentions in BBC in quotes don’t confer organisational notability. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:34, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seddon ^talk 08:44, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Scrapes over the line. RomanSpa (talk) 11:59, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clear from the BNA search above and a PROQUEST search that WP:SIGCOV is met. Either a proper WP:BEFORE wasn't done, or the nomination was made with a questionable motive as indicated by others above.4meter4 (talk) 16:37, 16 September 2021 (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.