Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joint Committee on the Palace of Westminster


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 02:49, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Joint Committee on the Palace of Westminster

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Contested prod: contested on the grounds that This page refers to a very new Committee that become highly important over the coming years, a huge budget will be potentially earmarked for works to the Palace of Westminster. I have created this page but much further information will follow. This seems to me the very embodiment of WP:CRYSTAL, quite aside from the fact that this article is completely redundant to Relocation of the Parliament of the United Kingdom and Palace of Westminster (the sole purpose of this committee is to determine whether it will be more cost-effective to renovate the PoW, or to move Parliament to an new building). &#8209; Iridescent 10:49, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

My intention is to further detail the committee members and link to previous key development stages. THIS PAGE SHOULD NOT BE DELETED. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bulverton (talk • contribs) 12:11, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - by the page creator: I have to say that I am at a loss to understand why this page is being considered for deletion, most if not all UK parliamentary committees have a presence on Wikipedia and this one is the bases for some huge decisions that are in the process of being worked into. As the forthcoming works to the Palace of Westminster gain higher public awareness this page will provide an excellent resource for those wanting to understand who is formulating the currently fluid plan to overhaul the Palace.


 * Keep - hard to see the above as a policy reason for deletion. The committee has been mentioned in British national media, I think it is fair to say that it is therefore seen as notable. JMWt (talk) 15:14, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * "Mentioned in the media" doesn't count for anything; I've been mentioned in the national media of multiple countries on multiple occasions, but nobody is going to write a biography of me. "Significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" is the criterion which determines whether something is potentially appropriate for a Wikipedia article; however, in this case since the committee has a single-purpose remit and that remit is already covered in detail elsewhere, there's no need for a separate stand-alone article. Wikipedia is written in summary style and isn't a directory; we're not really the best place if you're looking for somewhere to host a list of members of a committee, particularly in this case when anyone wanting to know the composition of the committee can just go to their own website. (Plus, not wanting to state the obvious but the article as it stands doesn't have a single non-primary source.) &#8209; Iridescent 18:36, 30 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. The committee might be notable in future but it hasn't done anything yet and there is no certainty that it will even continue. As such, this article has been created WP:TOOSOON and is WP:CRYSTAL. Jack | talk page 16:17, 30 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - there are adequate RS sources, the decisions the committee will be making are important and both it and the restoration issue has been media notable, nor is there any other article this content can be merged to. However, I can see in the future, if there was an article on the restoration project, a case to merge this article with it. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:04, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:37, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:37, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   13:05, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Is an administrator able to look at this request for deletion, I feel it has run long enough. The page should as I outlined earlier be kept and not be labeled with a deletion strapping any longer - many thanks.Bulverton (talk) 08:58, 11 November 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   21:11, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable committee working on notable project. RS news articles came up on my search .  But, Hey, this renovation is gonna cost £4 billion, let's cut the committee some slack on getting it budgeted and  underway.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:29, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - important government body of a major nation spending real money. Bearian (talk) 20:49, 17 November 2016 (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.