Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The English Project


 * 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 Delete  Nakon  02:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The English Project

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

This seems to be advertising to me. This program has not yet started. Finally, this page is almost copied from their website - although not exactly, it's clear that it was copy-pasted and lightly edited. The way, the truth, and the light (talk) 01:14, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Do not delete The programme has started and has heavy financial backing, thereofre is an ongoing piece of interest. The same argument put forward above could be used for the London Olympics 2012, as it is a future event.  This project has the backing of the BBC, David Crystal OBE, The British Council and The British Library amongst other heavy weight organisations.  This is not advertising as it is a museum project which would not benefit from advertising.  Kessiye (talk) 02:30, 19 April 2008
 * Note There we have it, a plug for a not-notable museum event. By your own argument it does not meet wiki policy Rotovia (talk) 02:05, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: Perhaps if you read the article, you would see it is far from non-notable - see The Eden Project for a similar scale entity.Kessiye (talk) 10:20, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment For the text from website argument, I have emailed the trustees of the project for "Wikipedia" content - not a reason for deletion.Kessiye (talk) 01:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: Which only serves to highlight the point; this article is written in an advertisement/press release tone. Clear NPOV violation Rotovia (talk) 02:03, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: The trustees have a WP:COI; they should not be writing the content. —teb728 t c 02:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: Fair point, text to be edited from other sources such as the global press coverage.Kessiye (talk) 10:20, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete advertising, and article may fail to prove of encyclopedic value Rotovia (talk) 02:02, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete without prejudice to recreation. Not yet notable.  May become so, later, however, so there's no reason to salt the space.  Celarnor Talk to me  02:32, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps Keep: If there were strong coverage by secondary sources, the subject might satisfy WP:ORG. The External References seem to promise that, but three of the four links are broken, and the mention in the fourth is incidental. —teb728 t c 03:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: The links have been fixed and now workKessiye (talk) 10:20, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: I understand the points of view here - but I can't understand why such a project is deemed as not encyclopedic, relevant or interesting to the people who read and contribute here. A £25 million project, the first in the world, launched by the world's leading expert in the English language, attended and supported by the likes of the Deputy Chairman of the BBC, Terry Jones from Monty Python (spurious - but I belive he is a renowned historian!), The British Council, The British Library etc.  It is of interest to scholars and the layman alike.  There is no request for money or attendance - so I also can't see it as advertising - merely information. That said, I'm a relative newbie on Wikipedia - so this is an education in itself.Kessiye (talk) 10:20, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep and Rewrite. On the one hand, the newspapers cited are major publications such as The Times, and there are full-legth articles about the project; on the other hand it looks as if these articles may be based completely or mostly on press releases. I have no doubts that there will be plenty of sources once it gets going, and that the project will become more than sufficiently notable for a WP article, but unfortunately that's not enough. Am biased because this looks tremendously exciting :-) If kept, the article would have to be rewritten, possibly by cutting it down to a stub and re-building it. --Bonadea (talk) 12:23, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment If deleted, agree with Celarnor that there should be no prejudice against re-creation once there is verifiable notability. --Bonadea (talk) 12:25, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Keep clearly a notable topic, and several independent references included. Johnbod (talk) 13:25, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete spam --Pustefix (talk) 18:23, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep reliable third-party coverage but not in great depth. Article needs to be trimmed back as too much is puff-piece PR but that, in itself, is not a reason for deletion. It is notable enough Nick Connolly (talk) 22:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.   -- Fabrictramp (talk) 20:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Gut and stub notable, covered by independent sources, but reads like an ad. victor falk 16:49, 23 April 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.