Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rotten Boroughs


 * 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   convert to redirect to Rotten borough. Sam Blacketer (talk) 12:26, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Rotten Boroughs

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

Article currently contains no informative content, and is instead a vast list of examples listed verbatim from various issues of Private Eye magazine. There is no scope for expanding the informative content, since this topic is a very minor column in Private Eye magazine, with nothing to say about it. All informative content here is duplicated in the main Private Eye article. The article title itself is not a useful search term; anyone typing "Rotten Boroughs" into the search box would almost certainly be seeking Rotten borough instead, and anyone looking specifically for information about this column itself would almost certainly go straight to the main magazine article itself. The series of articles related to Private Eye suffers from excessive splitting, and as such I propose deletion. Jdcooper (talk) 17:49, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete as nominator. Jdcooper (talk) 17:49, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as an unexpandable one-paragraph summary. Reprinting their yearly awards lists (verbatim?) is inappropriate for an encyclopaedia. --McGeddon (talk) 18:26, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Disagree with every point made by Jdcooper, who is a rogue editor, it is a valid article. As for what is appropriate for an encyclopaedia, this is a subjective statement - article provides accurate and relevant information therefore it is encyclopaedic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GWP (talk • contribs)
 * Inappropriate content is objectively defined by WP:NOT and other Wikipedia policies. --McGeddon (talk) 18:58, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:COATRACK. Most of the incidents do not pass notability criteria, so this is an end-run around WP:N. There is no third-party coverage to indicate that a Rotten Boroughs "award" had any impact outside the readers of the publication. --Dhartung | Talk 19:55, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep/merge The column is notable.Colonel Warden (talk) 22:26, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I can't see that any of those nine articles meet the "significant coverage" of WP:N - they're just clarifying which section of the Eye stories have appeared in, and aren't giving us much raw information about the column itself. And the only big story in there is more about the magazine than the column; it seems more appropriate for the Private Eye article, if we're going to write about it. --McGeddon (talk) 22:59, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment If this article is deleted, it should then be redirected to Rotten borough, an important article about English history and politics. If someone types the phrase "Rotten Boroughs" into the search box, that's probably what they are looking for. *** Crotalus *** 02:08, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Reverted to no copy vio version This article is listed in Copyright problems, on review the only option available appeared to be revert to a version without a copyright problem, which is the redirect to Rotten borough. I will leave it to the community to decide to delete the redirect, rebuild the article or speedy close this AfD. Jeepday (talk) 13:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Close this AfD per Jeepday. Redirect solves problems of original article and is a valid redirect. Elvis has left the building. B.Wind (talk) 04:11, 29 March 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.