Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of country codes on British diplomatic vehicle registration 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 (non-admin closure) ——  Ryan   |   t   •   c   21:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

List of country codes on British diplomatic vehicle registration plates

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

This article's last AfD (on the grounds of utter lack of sources, listed or elsewhere online, and lack of verifiability) was closed three months ago today. At the close, several users assured me that "codes on government issued diplomatic car registration plates are verifiable, most certainly by government documents" - but I have continued to research this and come up with nothing. An email to the DVLA drew a blank. The AfD was closed as keep with the comment "It's clear that the article creator is going to (successfully) work at the sourcing, putting himself out of pocket," which has sadly not been realised; no work at sourcing has happened save for the addition of a book which was suggested as a "likely source" - since no page numbers or details have been added, I must assume that the book doesn't provide citations for the entire article's content.

I was told that "being government issued plates means government verification exists"; I feel that I have put in sufficient time and effort to disprove the possibility of verifying the article. WP:CITE states that articles must cite their sources or the unsourced content will be removed; it's time for this to go. The many users who insisted that sources were out there three months ago have done nothing to provide any. I suggest that the article is, therefore, unverifiable. —TreasuryTag —t —c 11:36, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. In the previous deletion discussion, a book called A History of Motor Vehicle Registration in the United Kingdom by L. H. Newall was mentioned as a possible source. Has any editor looked at this? EALacey (talk) 14:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply - I've not been able to pursue that as my local libraries don't stock such an obscure (yet fascinating, of course!), title :-) and I'm not willing to splash out the £16.95 ($33.60) on a copy; not only am I a poor student but a typical reader would also appreciate a cheaper source, I'm sure. Furthermore, looking at available online synopses, it doesn't seem that it contains lengthy lists of the sort the article contains (at least ~3 pages of a normal-sized book). —TreasuryTag —t —c 15:14, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:V only requires that information be verifiable: it does not, thankfully, insist that everything be verifiable online - there are plenty of places where you will have to get information from good old-fashioned dead trees. -- Arwel (talk) 23:11, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Sources have been added. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:14, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Only self-published or vague sources, though... —TreasuryTag —t —c 18:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep Article is encyclopedic. Has sufficient sources.  Nomination and nominator comments are overly skeptical.  If the nominator can't get a hold of a book through inter-library loan or some other means, that's certainly not grounds for an AfD. His or her rush towards a simple google-search certainty and an impatience with good faith of provided references suggests an editor with a character out of alignment with wikipedia 5 pillars. pie WP:Trout --Firefly322 (talk) 18:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Google-Search + communication with numerous government departments, that is. I say I put in more effort than a reader would to verify it. —TreasuryTag —t —<small style="background:#DBDBDB;border:#EB8500 1px solid;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px">c 08:52, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Which government departments other than the DVLA did you communicate with? Good for you for trying to verify the article, but I'd hardly say a Google search and an email to a government department (which didn't reply) is much more than a very casual effort. Perhaps a better idea would have been to ask the article creator User:Arwel Parry, who is an editor of good standing for over five years and still with the project, for some assistance in demonstrating the veracity of his original reference. It seems that your only communication with him has been to inform him of your deletion nomination of the article. --Canley (talk) 02:09, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The DVLA is the government department responsible. There is no point in emailing others; there are acts of parliament making the DVLA responsible. Arwel contributed to the last discussion which I made an effort to link to above; furthermore, WP:CITE clearly states that uncited information may be DELETED. This is uncited information. <small style="white-space:nowrap;size:95%;color:#2F74FF">—<small style="background:#FFFFFF;border:#EB8500 1px solid;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px">TreasuryTag —<small style="background:#DBDBDB;border:#EB8500 1px solid;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px">t —<small style="background:#DBDBDB;border:#EB8500 1px solid;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px">c 07:16, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I know that the DVLA is the responsible department, it's just that you said you contacted "numerous government departments", and I was wondering which other ones you contacted. --Canley (talk) 08:01, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I also emailed off to the Department for Transport and the Foreign Office; the FCO just directed me to the DVLA and Transport likewise didn't reply, but I didn't expect them to as it's not their responsibility, and you know what civil servants are like about who's responsible for what! <small style="white-space:nowrap;size:95%;color:#2F74FF">—<small style="background:#FFFFFF;border:#EB8500 1px solid;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px">TreasuryTag —<small style="background:#DBDBDB;border:#EB8500 1px solid;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px">t —<small style="background:#DBDBDB;border:#EB8500 1px solid;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px">c 08:16, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Ha ha, yes indeed! I was wondering if you had contacted the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, at least they responded to you. OK, I see from the previous AFD that the creator of the article doesn't really remember his original source, and it was created in the days when Wikipedia was somewhat more "relaxed" about citations and references. --Canley (talk) 09:43, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep appropriate sources for the subject. DGG (talk) 19:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong keep Definitely encyclopedic. Has the DVLA cited as a source, among others, giving good verifiability. Passes WP:N as well. PeterSymonds (talk)  22:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The large list of organisations and countries is unsourced (if the book covers it, a page-number is required). Unless a source is added, it is liable to be removed per WP:CITE. I shall do so myself if one is not added within a month - that is, four months since the first AfD. <small style="white-space:nowrap;size:95%;color:#2F74FF">—<small style="background:#FFFFFF;border:#EB8500 1px solid;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px">TreasuryTag —<small style="background:#DBDBDB;border:#EB8500 1px solid;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px">t —<small style="background:#DBDBDB;border:#EB8500 1px solid;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px">c 08:51, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep The evidence from those sources listed show photographs of several of these diplomatic plates, and they correspond with those in the article. Therefore, I see no reason to question the authenticity of the list, especially as it was added by an established user - the sequencing seems logical and alphabetical. After all, in theory there are cars running around London as we speak that have these on the front and the back...maybe the FCO would be able to be of assistance? Bob talk 15:55, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * No reason to question the authenticity, no, just the verifiability. The DVLA is the government body resoponsible for number-plates and they didn't respond to my inquiries, as I stated above. The other sources are all self-published. <small style="white-space:nowrap;size:95%;color:#2F74FF">—<small style="background:#FFFFFF;border:#EB8500 1px solid;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px">TreasuryTag —<small style="background:#DBDBDB;border:#EB8500 1px solid;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px">t —<small style="background:#DBDBDB;border:#EB8500 1px solid;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px">c 16:29, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment Does anyone else flat out ignore the content of hopelessly middle-brow commentary, which appears to be motivated by everyone and everything that might disagree with someone's possibly not fully developed world view? (hate the sin not the sinner) WP:TROUT --Firefly322 (talk) 14:43, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.   -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:03, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep and Comment This is exactly the sort of hard-to find information Wikipedia ought to have. Relax a little bit with the sourcing; interlibrary loan takes time and so far there's no reason to doubt the material here.  While unsourced material can be removed, that doesn't mean it should be.  It's possible such a list exists but is not normally shared with the public.  The US has a similar list, which the Washington Post obtained and published in the 1980s.  Someone might want to look at newspapers as well as documents published by license plate collector's clubs. Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:32, 26 May 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.