Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people who have switched on the Blackpool Illuminations


 * 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 22:13, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

List of people who have switched on the Blackpool Illuminations

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Entirely unsourced indiscriminate collection of information. Small amounts of relevant, notable information can be merged into the main article if needed, but I don’t think we need a list of everyone who has ever turned on these lights. firefly ( t · c ) 20:25, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  firefly  ( t · c ) 20:25, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:26, 5 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep The nomination talks of merger but that's not done by deletion – see WP:MAD for details. See the similar List of Oxford Street Christmas lights celebrities for the southern equivalent. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:20, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. Reliable sources have discussed this list of people as a group. See Everything You Didn't Need to Know About the UK, New Statesman, Lost Blackpool. pburka (talk) 23:11, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per all the above. Not sure how this is "indiscriminate" when it has a clearly defined inclusion criteria.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 07:58, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Change into a column-ated list and merge to Blackpool Illuminations. Would fit perfectly there. Geschichte (talk) 11:10, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep This is not entirely unsourced and and an additional source is the BBC's coverage over the decades of the switch-on. Rillington (talk) 13:50, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Purely for the record, it was entirely unsourced when nominated (this is how it looked then), but has been significantly improved since then with sources being found that I seemingly either missed or didn't search in the right places for. Given there has been a non-keep !vote, I cannot withdraw the nomination formally. However, I feel that given the improvements made and that almost certainly will continue to be made, the article probably deserves to be kept - many thanks to those who made such improvements. firefly  ( t · c ) 13:57, 6 September 2021 (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.