Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2015 Dissolution Honours


 * 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. As per the discussion, no prejudice to an article being created once the list actually exists and can be verified. postdlf (talk) 01:23, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

2015 Dissolution Honours

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Speculation and crystal ball stuff no need for it to be created until it actually exists as it is being used as a tabloid rumour page which probably has BLP issues, contested prod. MilborneOne (talk) 16:30, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 6 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete with no prejudice against recreation if a list is announced. It is a little surprising that the list still has not appeared: probably there will be a list in due course. But so far, there's no material for the article. Colapeninsula (talk) 17:00, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll make a conditional !vote and say weak keep if we are sure that there will be a list and delete if this is not yet certain. Maybe this was created a bit too soon but the content seems innocuous in its current state. We just need to keep it free of speculation and cruft until the details are announced. Avoiding cruft does not in itself suggest deletion but any genuine question over whether the subject is certain to exist does. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:16, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete with no prejudice against recreation if and when an official list is announced. The current article is nothing but rumor mongering, which is a BLP violation even if the rumors are positive. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  17:03, 7 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Strong delete We don't do rumours. End of story. ukexpat (talk) 18:43, 7 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Amen to "We don't do rumours". That content was indefensible and I have removed it. It could even be argued that copying a big list pulled out of somebody else's backside is plagiarism. The question is whether there is any legitimacy to the topic at all? If so, maybe we want to keep this as a short stub until there is genuine information to add. I can certainly understand the exasperation with the way this bad content is being reinserted but deletion is not the answer to that issue if the topic is valid. In the meantime, I have retained the links to the speculation as references for the existence of mainstream media speculation, which does weakly point towards the notability of the topic. If anybody wants to read that stuff we are making it easy for them to find without endorsing it ourselves. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:37, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

This is nonsence. The list is expected in the next weeks. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ukip/11716735/Ukip-could-have-to-wait-until-2020-for-new-peers-David-Cameron-suggests.html Nothing should be deleted! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Politik (talk • contribs) 15:22, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - The telegraph quotes (from five days ago) "If and when a Dissolution Honours List marking the end of the previous Parliament is published" and gives no timescale and also puts an element of doubt that it may not happen. MilborneOne (talk) 18:39, 10 July 2015 (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.