Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Disasters on the Severn


 * 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. Merge and move should be discussed on the talk page. Tim Song (talk) 03:02, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Disasters on the Severn

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Badly written, sensationalist and largely unreferenced article. The only reference is for an event that already exists as a Wikipedia article - Bristol Channel floods, 1607. Perhaps any content that can be referenced could be merged into River Severn. Simple Bob (talk) 15:26, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment If it was sourced, it would probably be a legitimate spinoff of River Severn. I've never understood people who can tell us the exact dates of disasters and how many people died and all the details, but they can't tell us where the hell they learned it from.  Mandsford (talk) 17:50, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * If you look at the history of that article you will see that its creator was an incurable spammer whose only contributions before he took a wikiholiday were to promote his own website about River Severn history. That adds another reason why I believe it doesn't belong as a standalone article. --Simple Bob (talk) 18:12, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as unverified bad faith contribution. If someone manages to verify any of these claims, merge any verified information to River Severn. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 08:04, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep or Merge. Enough incidents now properly referenced for this to be rescuable. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:29, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge - with River Severn article perhaps with some editing —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephencdickson (talk • contribs) 14:36, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - the subject of the article is notable enough. That the article needs improvement and better referencing is not a reason to delete. Mjroots2 (talk) 08:53, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem is that at the moment, if we remove all the unverified content, there's nothing left. I'm quite happy to make an effort to look for sources when people make good faith contributions, but I don't see why we should be expected to go running round cleaning up pages designed to promote someone else's website. But if someone wants to verify this anyway (and even a reliable assurance that the information is broadly accurate would be enough), I'll happily change this to Keep. I might see if there's a suitable wikiproject to ask about this. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 09:25, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I've added a ref for the Stancliffe grounding. There is a source for the Severn Railway Bridge accident (which should be easily verifiable online) - Ron Huxley, The rise and fall of the Severn Bridge Railway, 1984, ISBN 978-1-84868-033-3 which could be added, although this would be an AGF addition. Mjroots (talk) 05:44, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. I've done a bit further digging, and the plot thickens. Both the major references to this article were added by User:Severnbore. The external link was originally to http://www.severnbore.ndirect.co.uk/bridges3.htm (now a dead link), then later changed by the same user to http://www.severntales.co.uk/bridges3.htm (link later fixed). This is an apparently self-published website maintained by a Chris Witts (albeit one that looks at first glance fairly reliable for a self-published site). User:Severnbore also used as a reference a book by the very same Chris Witts. It was published by Tempus publishing, which, to be fair, doesn't look like vanity publisher. However, we now have a major problem that this information may be well researched, but we only have the say-so of the article author that the sources which he wrote himself are accurate. Hmm, difficult. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 10:47, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I've improved the referencing as far as I can - Note such referencing is only as far as to verify the date and basic facts of the relevant incident. Text may still need to be tweaked. Mjroots (talk) 10:22, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


 * WITHDRAW NOMINATION Thanks to MJroots for the work done on improving the article (to which I have also added). I'm now very happy to withdraw the deletion nomination, but would like to see the article renamed as List of accidents and incidents on the River Severn - which matches the naming convention of other similar article. So I'm going to withdraw this nomination and under WP:BOLD I'm going to go ahead with the rename (unless someone objects in the next few minutes... --Simple Bob (talk) 10:33, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that the rename is necessary - see Southport shipwrecks for a similar "list type article" which isn't at a "List of... " title. Maybe a WP:RM would be in order to judge consensus. Mjroots (talk) 10:36, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Good point. So I won't rename, but will wait for the deletion request to be closed. I'll then open a move request - but I do want to get rid of "disaster" from the title as, for example, two people falling off a bridge is not a disaster, although it is an incident notable enough to be included in the list. --Simple Bob (talk) 10:41, 18 May 2010 (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.