Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of country codes on British diplomatic car number plates


 * 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 - Peripitus (Talk) 12:22, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

List of country codes on British diplomatic car number plates

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

I've searched the net and Wikipedia, and can find no source for any of the "information" in this article. Plenty of sites copy the article, though :-) It appears to be a very elaborate hoax. Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 16:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment This article was started by an active administrator in apparently good standing; an accusation of hoaxing would be very serious. From my own Googling, I see this government document describes the format for such registration plates as "No. No. No. D or X No. No. No." and gives examples, "123 D 456 or 789 X 321"; this vehicle registration marketing site describes a similar format; and this trainspotter's plate enthusiast's site has photographs of what are claimed to be diplomatic plates. While this doesn't go as far as to verify each line of information in the article, I'm inclined to think this isn't a hoax. --Sturm 17:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Changing vote in light of sourcing being added. Regardless of how "important" the author is, this doesn't appear to be information of much good use.  If one happens to be in England and one happens to see a car with licence plate number 915 X 102, one can consult the article and say, "It's driven by a member of the International Wheat Council".  It's easy to see how this could be used for evil purposes, particularly if one is looking for a person from a particular nation.  It's just not easy to see any good purpose for this list.  Mandsford (talk) 19:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Whether you can see a good purpose to this article is beside the point. The fact is that there are groups of people who take an interest in such things (there's even a blog of diplomatic plates seen in Oxford!), and it is Wikipedia's purpose to make information available: Wikipedia is not censored - if an embassy is concerned about security issues, the system already permits them to take plates with codes in the 350 - 400 range, as the article states. We have many vehicle plate articles on different countries which enable their meaning to be deciphered, Irish vehicle registration plates, German car number plates, French vehicle registration plates with List of arrondissements of France, just as some examples. Administrators are not "important", but a claim that an administrator of 5 years' good standing has created a hoax article most certainly is a serious allegation, which I object to intensely, and I would thank Porcupine to retract that. Three years after the event, it's difficult to remember where the information originally came from, but this page looks familiar, and it's the sort of thing found in published handbooks. I point out that the pictures shown on the "trainspotters" page found by Sturm are consistent with the information in our article. In common with another longstanding and respected editor, Fuzheado, I wish people would spend more time creating articles, and not spend most of their time on AfD. -- Arwel (talk) 21:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Query - under Wikipedia's verifiability policy, articles which cannot be independently verified in a third-party reliable source may not be included in the project. Could you maybe cite sources for each piece of info in the article, including the full list? Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 21:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * An article topic only fails WP:V if the content is unverifiable, not currently unverified. Certainly codes on government issued diplomatic car registration plates are verifiable, most certainly by government documents. --Oakshade (talk) 00:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't consider an article verifiable if it requires somebody to write to a government department under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, wait 20 days for them to consider the reqsuest, quite possibly have the request turned down on the grounds of health and safety... it's stupid. Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 07:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Interesting fictional scenario on acquiring government documentation ("quite possibly have the request turned down"?), but nonetheless you're validating the verifiability of this topic. You might term that "stupid", but your POV is not based on WP:V policy. --Oakshade (talk) 18:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Go ahead and see if you can get verification, then. I bet you don't. Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 19:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Just by being government issued plates means government verification exists. Whether a gambling Wikipedia editor such as yourself can successfully acquire related documents in a short amount of time is irrelevant to WP:V.  There's no "Governments are secretive and therefore probably won't provide verification" clause in WP:V. --Oakshade (talk) 22:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep, as it appears to not be a hoax and is verifiable, even if it is not now verified. Tuf-Kat (talk) 00:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, appears to be a useful list on a notable topic. I would suggest that the nominator needs to be more careful about what he writes in his nominations and should perhaps bring problems like a lack of references to the attention of other editors on the talk page first, rather than using AFD. Bob talk 10:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * My point was - and is - that I can't find (and believe me, I've looked) a single reliable source for any of this information. Assuming that it is true, which is a fairly big assumption, the only way it could be verified by a member of the public would be to write to a government department (after finding which one - DVLA or FCO is relevant) under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, wait 20 days for them to consider the reqsuest, quite possibly have the request turned down on the grounds of health and safety. So, if we're relying on excessive and unstable bureaucracy, or shoddy sources, it's scarcely going to have any place on this encylopedia. Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 10:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * That's a good point. I don't know whether "Paul Haynes' UK Plate Page" is considered authoritative.  I'd figure that if this is the new birdwatching, there's got to be something official they're going by.  Mandsford (talk) 21:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - This encyclopedic list is discriminate and as it's entirely verifiable as these are government issued codes. --Oakshade (talk) 00:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You must provide a source. How do you know they are government issued and not something that was in place in the 1960s and no longer used? It CANNNOT be verified. I've tried, including emailing off to the government. Also, take a look at these mailing-list posts. Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 08:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe this is known as "Argumentum ad Jimbonem". --Sturm 13:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe so, but I think you may have misunderstood the essay when you read it in full. It notes that we should, of course, "never ignore what Jimbo has to say on an issue", just not abuse his comments with "a haphazard interpretation of something he said on a semi-related matter several years ago". Plus, it's an essay, not policy or guideline. Plus, "he has the authority to create policy from scratch if he thinks it necessary". Plus, the condition "For this reason it is usually unacceptable to present something in a quote-like format without clearly indicating where you got the material for the quote. Preferably also add a hyperlink to where you got it, to make it easier for others to check whether the quote really occurred, and was not quoted out of context." has been fully satisfied, I believe. Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 13:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You're presenting Jimbo's words in order to forward an argument to have an article removed from Wikipedia. This post does not discuss the deletion of articles; this post does not discuss the deletion of articles. The policy from which you lifted the second quote outlines a more cautionary approach to giving people a chance to source things (outside of BLP concerns; and besides, this is hardly controversial material).  I think it's more than possible that at least one of the editors who've commented here would like an opportunity to do that. What I think ought to have been done at the very beginning is to challenge the material via appropriate tagging, allied with a note on the talk page explaining your concerns. Then, after a reasonable space of time, if the sourcing had not improved, there would be an appropriate platform from which to build a case for deletion, instead of rushing into a foot-in-mouth situation where an experienced editor was implied to be a hoaxer. --Sturm 14:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * "Any editor who removes such things, and refuses to allow it back without an actual and appropriate source, should be the recipient of a barnstar". The article has no sources, so if I were to follow what Jimbo said, and that's an actual quote, then I'd have to blank or delete the article. Can you find a hole in that? "It is better to have no information than to have information with no sources". He doesn't say tag it, in fact, he specifically says not to tag it. Anyway, I've checked, and there ARE no sources, so what in heaven's name would be accomplished by tagging?! Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 14:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You could try blanking the article, but I don't think a barnstar would be the result. Giving people the time to look for sources which you personally can't find has the potential to make the difference between "one editor thinks there are no sources" and "there probably aren't any sources". --Sturm 14:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * There aren't any. And I'm going to re-nominate this article for AfD in two months, when still no sources will have been added. And they won't have been added because there aren't any - and I challenge you to find some rather than bicker with me :-) Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 14:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep The article is perfectly valid, although a reference would be useful - perhaps someone could phone the Dept of Transport in the UK? Bardcom (talk) 16:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I emailed the DVLA already, and - surprise surprise - they've not replied. By extreme coincidence, in about 2hrs I'll be visiting someone in the DfT headquarters in London (!) but I think I'd look a bit odd asking questions like that... Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 16:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow. Hardcore WP:OR going on there (I'm envious of the amount of spare time you have).   Should your government bureaucracy adventure not be successful by the time this AfD ends, I won't be convinced that government car plates codes are unverifiable. Maybe you're looking in the wrong place.  As these are diplomatic plates, perhaps you'd want to start with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.  The Home Office would be my next stop. --Oakshade (talk) 06:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * On the contrary... you've failed on two counts. Firstly, the Home Office is so completely unrelated to this issue the idea is almost laughable, and secondly, please answer this point: "Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed". It's been challenged; I'm challenging it. I've written to two government agencies (and the right ones, this time!), neither of which has replied. It can't, therefore, be easily verified, and it should be removed. Please answer that point, Oakshade. Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 08:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but I don't subscribe to the "If Porcupine is incapable of finding government verification on its own car plates codes within 3 days (or 30 days for that matter), then there's no way anyone can find it" method to decide if a topic is verfiable. Your own strange WP:OR adventure is not going to change WP:CONSENSUS on this matter.    --Oakshade (talk) 08:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * What are the limits of verifiability, then? I'm sure that, say, Roswell is verifiable if I break into the DoD headquarters in Washington. But, suggest a course of action which a normal reader can take to verify the information, and one that would work, preferably one you've tried yourself. Also, you forgot to explain how this policy doesn't apply in this instance: "Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed". I've bolded the key terms. Please explain where my logic's gone wrong - I'm saying that since no reliable source has been provided, and the material has been challenged, it should be removed. Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 09:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * And consensus currently appears to be saying you should give it some more time. The internet may give the impression that anything not immediately available doesn't exist, but I suspect there are, for example, a number of libraries out there which could disprove that. --Sturm 11:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comparing an alleged alien spacecraft crash landing in the 1940s to existing diplomatic country codes on car license plates? Now this debate is just getting silly. (And to think you laughed at me for the Home Office suggestion.) --Oakshade (talk) 17:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Porc, I think your idea of coming back in a couple of months is probably the better course of action. This discussion ran off on a tangent early on, being more about personalities than about the merits of the article.  I think we can close by agreeing that Arwel Parry and Porcupine are both swell guys.  If the article is still unsourced the next time it comes up, then it really should be deleted.  Mandsford (talk) 13:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I am going to throw in a likely citation, but The Stationery Office quotes a dispatch time of 1-4 weeks: "A History of Motor Vehicle Registration in the United Kingdom", L.H.Newall, Newby Books, 320pp, republished 20-01-2008, £16.95, ISBN 9781872686325. The publishers' blurb reads: "This is the long-awaited reprint of Les Newall's 'standard work' on vehicle registration, updated and illustrated. Les spent a lifetime researching the history of the UK registration system and this book is the product of his research.He tells the story of the development of 'ordinary' registration marks from their introduction in 1903 and also gives detailed information about trade plates, diplomatic marks, military registrations and the unique British cherished number system.A large part of the book is taken up with a council-by-council survey which includes dates of issue of all known pre-1963 two-letter and three-letter marks. In addition to the occasional illustrations in Les' original text, this edition features eight pages of photographs and a new chapter explaining how the current registration system introduced in 2001 has actually worked out in practice." -- Arwel (talk) 23:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep It's clear that the article creator is going to (successfully) work at the sourcing, putting himself out of pocket. Once again, print media triumphs over the internet. --Sturm 23:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Author has located a printed source.  Hopefully, you can find it in the library when it comes out, since 16.95 pounds makes it a pretty expensive (not to mention really heavy) book.  Mandsford (talk) 01:09, 21 February 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.