Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Births, Marriages and Deaths


 * 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. Recreation is a redirect is perfectly kosher, but there's no consensus as to a target below. lifebaka++ 18:39, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Births, Marriages and Deaths

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Pretty pointless article. Uncyclopedic, and only focuses on the UK. LegoKontribsTalkM 04:47, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect to General Register Office until someone writes a proper review of BMD registration in different countries. Sgroupace (talk) 05:24, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect or delete. Not really useful information. J I P  | Talk 06:24, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Article just states that the population registry in the UK is not doing its job. No redirect to the UK registry because this time of data is standard for all population statistics, not the UK in particular. Sjakkalle (Check!)  10:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Civil registry. Hiding T 10:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand. It actually relates to England and Wales at the moment and would be helpful if it also covered other countries. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  11:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand I will vote for myself and mention that the other person who asked the question aka "How about BMD's for other countries? (unsigned by 150.101.209.14 )" is of the same feeling that it should cover more countries. gioto (talk) 14:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment, If it's kept it needs a renaming to something else {possibly Birth, Marriage, and Death registration in the (specific country)?}. The Man in the Rock (talk) 02:18, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, then redirect to General Register Office as reasonable search term. I can't really see a good article at this title. Stifle (talk) 21:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Vital record or Delete. I guess someone may search under these terms, as these are the three most common forms of Vital Records (which would be a better name for the target article than "Vital record", but that's a different story). It is unnecessary to carve these three off into a separate article. With regard to the redirect target, the namespace is not nation-specific, so it should not redirect to a page relevant only to England and Wales, even if the current content is limited in that manner.  The current Vital record page could use some beefing up, but it has the desired international focus, and explicitly links to UK-specific information if that is the geographic region that interests the reader. Agricolae (talk) 02:52, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Just to make sure this is clear, neither Civil registry nor General Register Office are generic terms - use the term "civil registry" in the US and the only people who know what you are talking about are genealogists working on UK ancestors. Most will probably think it refers to some secret government conspiracy. Agricolae (talk) 16:32, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Question and comment Is this about a process or an office? I'd like the stub cleaned up before it is deleted.  If not, then redirect to General Register Office per Stifle et al. Bearian (talk) 16:54, 22 September 2008 (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.