Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Regia Anglorum


 * 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.  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 22:49, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Regia Anglorum

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Contested PROD. This organisation does not seem to meet the notability criteria, I can't find coverage at reliable sources which are independent of the subject. The coverage in the New Statesman referred to in the article (which I had high hopes for when I saw it on the references list) does not even name the group, merely discussing a group of beardy-weirdy Anglo-Saxon nuts, which is presumably referring to this group?

The editor who contested the PROD said in the edit summary that the prod ''appears to be solely on the basis of the editor's dislike of "beardy weirdies". One would think that when re-enactment culminates in building an entire village and a fleet of ships, it is notable'' - to which I would like to make two comments: As such, I do not see that they meet the notability criteria, which requires verifiability and sourcing.  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 21:48, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) I didn't use the phrase about "beardy weirdies" - the New Statesmen did. That is their reporter's thoughts, not my own. Again, the group is not named, so how can we verify that this organisation is that group?
 * 2) If significant coverage of the group, including building a village and shops, can be found at reliable sources which are independent of the group, I would not have nominated this for deletion - however, I couldn't find any, and the New Statesman article is not sufficient for that purpose, as although it is reliable and independent, it does not name the group.


 * Keep and admonish or block editor for WP:POINT.
 * This is one of a series of scatter-gun PRODs by this editor against UK-based historical re-enactment groups. A prod that describes the article subject as "beardy weirdies", even when choosing which cite to quote, is rarely the sign of a balanced judgement of notability. Whilst not claiming that all are notable, I'm particularly concerned by the editor's total disregard for both WP:BEFORE and for the workload of other editors. When they can use phrases like, "though I thought that this should meet the notability criteria (it's an organisation that I have heard of), I can't find coverage at reliable sources which are independent of the subject." then they show an utter lack of respect for other editors. Who do they think adds such references? The reference pixies? No, it's other editors who they've now cheerfully dumped this extra and immediate workload onto, and a small group of specialist interest editors who've now been told to expand refs on _every_ article at once or see them deleted. This editor has even nom'ed The Sealed Knot for AfD, a group that has not only been around for about 40 years, but pretty much established mass re-enactment in the UK. Of course any editor is entitled to nominate articles for deletion, or to point out their lack of references (although to do this whilst quoting the New Statesman's own references is chutzpah!). Yet doing this en masse, with such disregard for bothering to do any of the incumbent legwork themself, is not the action of an editor who believes in collegiate editing, or who has an evident interest in improving the encyclopedia. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:19, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * a) assume good faith b) once I saw that this had been prodded, I went on a internet trawl for news articles on the group - expecting it would be the quickest way to source the groups existence and high profile - I found one. I found lots of renactment websites referring to it but they didn't strike me as independent or reliable. GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:14, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you were just looking in the current news, not the archives. See the news link above for The historical reenactor in The Guardian, for example. Warden (talk) 07:31, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * "AGF is not a suicide pact" These prods & AfDs represent sheer laziness on the part of the nominator - particularly an acceptance that they're probably a bad nom, but that the nominator is still happy to deliberately ignore WP:BEFORE in favour of dumping that workload onto others. AfD isn't saying that the refs need improvement, it's claiming that there is no adequate coverage of a topic whatsoever. I don't believe the nominator believes this, so why are they even raising it here, if not to strong-arm other editors into having to do immediate cleanup work, or lose articles? That is not a GF action.
 * As to the notability of Regia, then they're pretty much the "go to guys" for rent-a-viking [sic] on UK TV for the last few years. If you see a beardy weirdie with a seax, or a longboat, chances are that they're Regia people. Coast has certainly used them, I think Time Team too. They're even covered in the pages of Stationary Engine Magazine. If you don't like older sources, here's one from the Grauniad just a couple of months ago . Andy Dingley (talk) 11:46, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep This deletion spree has not been made in accordance with our deletion policy. It is trivially easy to find sources for these topics such as this. Warden (talk) 23:52, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep, certainly notable, although sourcing should be improved. Johnbod (talk) 12:48, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Plenty of news coverage ; I added another Guardian reference to the article. I'm amazed how much this group does; no wonder they get so much coverage. --MelanieN (talk) 20:23, 4 December 2011 (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.