Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Londinium Pedo

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. Sandstein 10:27, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Londinium Pedo[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 deleted under WP:PROD years ago, but has just been restored based on the claim that "There are two good secondary refs". However, one of those references is a Wikipedia mirror, and the other is the homepage of the "Armchair Treasure Club". The deletion rationale from four years ago—Since this has been on Wikipedia for eight years without a source, it seems reasonable to assume nobody is planning to add one. Not a single Google hit other than Wikipedia mirrors and passing mentions in a couple of blogs, and as far as I can tell this has managed the astonishing feat of being an event in the centre of one of the most media-intensive cities on the planet which has never even been mentioned in any newspaper, ever.—is just as valid today as it was then. ‑ Iridescent 05:44, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If you ask for an article to be restored, it is your responsibility to improve it. The article still fails to indicate why it passes WP:N, and is referenced to primary/local single source. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:07, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:41, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:42, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails all criteria of WP:NEVENT and doesn't have significance coverage totally. Not even some few independent sources to rely on. – Ammarpad (talk) 07:31, 7 May 2019 (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.