Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bilston Glen

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Several keep votes were folks whose only edits were directly related to this article. There were only 2 valid keep votes and 6 delete votes.Rx StrangeLove 19:36, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Bilston Glen
plus six images.

Hopelessly POV article. This is a road protest group trying to extend their own website into Wikispace. Originally spotted as a copyvio. The page from which it was copied has been deleted and the site's main page now carries a link to the Wiki article ("wiki" on left hand side)! (Creator Rogerz is not above vandalism - see Copyright problems under Bilston Glen - so we need to keep watch.) -- RHaworth 14:09, 13 September 2005 (UTC) apart from 2 photos which are from the web- traffic.jpeg www.epa.gov/epahome/gallery/newsroom/traffic.jpg the route map (41105284_e6a16a810f_m.jpg) is from this website http://www.spokes.org.uk/oldsite/naag/
 * delete. Extremely POV and unencyclopaedic in style. Whether the road they're protesting about is notable outside the local area I'm not certain, but I think its unlikely. I'm reasonably well versed in significant new transport proposals in the UK, and I wasn't aware of this. Thryduulf 15:23, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
 * weakly delete keep. I don't know that POV is a good reason for deletion. (granted it would be easier than battling POV warriors - I added the NPOV tag). Not being encyclopedic on the other hand would be. I was going to ask if it got any coverage in the UK, but Thryduulf pretty much answered that; I think the road in question is a bypass spur of the A7 road. If their claim that the protest site has been around for over three years and I'm interpreting right that it has been continuosly occupied, then that seems like an extraordinary example of protest that may deserve mention somewhere else on wikipedia. Whitejay251 16:07, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Like Sdedeo, provision of some sources has helped to assuage some of my qualms with this article. I say keep for now, and see what happens both here and in the real world. Whitejay251 20:30, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete unless newspaper coverage can be sourced confirming the supposed three-year occupation. Then slap a billion cleanup and NPOV tags on it and hope for the best. Sdedeo 16:55, 13 September 2005 (UTC) Now keep; sources have been provided. The article still needs a huge amount of cleanup, however, there are copyvio images all over the place for example. Note that POV problems are never sufficient grounds for deletion. Sdedeo 19:44, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia is not a web host --Carnildo 21:45, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete, advocacy, rant. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:00, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. POV, nn, rant. Andrew pmk | Talk 23:23, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
 * KEEP! Your wrong to argue that it breaks copyright, It is my interlectual property. The topic does require a page of its own, not just a mention on another. I am posting it as a discussion document, and if anyone wants to do a major edit on it, thats fair enough. It is not that extreme a point of view compared to the Bilston Glen website. Yes it does need some work to make it more encyclopedic in style. Most of the photos are also my interlectual property.

heres a newspaper article for Sdedeo http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/tm_objectid=15922005&method=full&siteid=66633&headline=bilston-woods--the-only-camp-in-the-world-with-an-eco-warrior-so-clean-he-s--called-shiny--name_page.html
 * I am posting it as a discussion document. I'm sorry, you're in the wrong place.  This is an encyclopedia, not a collection of discussions.  User:Zoe|(talk) 18:50, 14 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete. WP:NOT soapbox, webspace. Apparent copyvio as well, as he claims it's his intellectual property, unless he donates it under GFDL. Owen&times; &#9742;  00:07, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Kept. I just did an edit to tone it down a bit, changed the style and to document the other point of view. I have also emailed midlothian council for a reply and to expand the other point of view.User:NicolaX|(talk) 14:50, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Note: User's fourth edit --Carnildo 19:20, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Kept Please do not bite the newcomers just because a newbie doesn't yet know php scripting   (in html)and didn't post links, and has done things incorrectly is no reason to discard the article. I've sent messages to him with a tutorial about non-POV articles PHPtraining 14:42, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Note: User's first and only edit --Carnildo 19:20, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Scratching my head. Where do you possibly get the idea that we are trying to get this removed because of the format?  It's the content which is incompatible with an encyclopedia.  User:Zoe|(talk) 19:53, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
 * NOTICE: Trollz attempted remove of AfD tag on article (edit: 04:08, 21 September 2005) - this is user's only edit. Whitejay251 12:38, 21 September 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.