Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Hundred Parishes


 * 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. Deor (talk) 11:20, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

The Hundred Parishes

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Procedural nom. Rationale left by 109.176.223.232 was "The term "Hundred Parishes" only appears to be used by the Hundred Parishes Society, an organisation founded this year." Protonk (talk) 19:52, 24 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. It is incorrect to claim that the organisation was founded this year. I apologise that this impression may have been left by my original wording of the section covering the Society, which I have now amended. The concept arose in 2009, a steering group developed in 2010, the name was settled by 2011, and formal support was registered in 2012. The section "An ancient area - a new title" has been added and then expanded to explain the evolution of the Hundred Parishes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TeskeyUK (talk • contribs)


 * Keep. To the nominator, I don't understand at all what you mean by the sentence "Procedural nom."  I don't know what a procedural nomination would be.  Does that mean that you don't nominate it yourself, don't believe it should be deleted, and you are merely following some procedure that you are required to, or something?  It is not a sentence.  And you refer to a "rationale" that is where, part of what process?  It is not explained.  I also don't see any support for deletion.  The nomination provides no mention of wp:BEFORE being completed or conducting any other search for sources.  It gives no comment on sources in the article.  Perhaps the article has changed since nominated (i am not checking), but there are 19 inline references in the article now.  It looks to me like some of them are appropriate to have in the article in covering some detail but do not specifically support usage of the term Hundred Parishes, but others  of them have titles that involve the Hundred Parishes term and do support it.  Seeing no valid deletion rationale, i currently !vote "Keep".  Also, it is a brand new article --just a week old-- and I think it would be more appropriate to discuss sources and need to provide more to establish notability perhaps AT THE TALKPAGE OF the article, first, not launch an AFD that is premature.  There is some guideline about alternatives to AFD that suggests for new articles, such an alternative. -- do  ncr  am  01:44, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm completing a deletion nomination made here for an IP editor who can't technically complete the nomination. Sorry for not making that more clear. Protonk (talk) 01:53, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for explaining. This refreshes me, I have seen nominations like this before;  you or someone else gave me info sometime a few months ago.  I object in princip;e, because there is no one accountable for the nomination, and here, the nomination is another poor one.  It shouldn't have been nominated for several reasons (that wp:BEFORE apparently not performed, that per wp:BITE we shouldn't harsh on a new contributor and wipe out all their contributions, that there is no deletion nominator making a case and responding to questions);  and I feel we all are dupes to be following the wish of an IP and a cooperating agent, with no one really responsible.  Or, Protonk, do you take responsibility for this nomination?  But thanks for info anyhow.  About the general problem, an RFC at Talk page of wp:AFD (?) or somewhere should be opened. -- do  ncr  am  23:17, 27 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. Whatever the formal age of the organization, this has no bearing on the notability of the subject. There are now sufficient independent sources (I know because I located and added several of them) to establish that it meets WP:GNG, though it could certainly use more.  These will presumably be added as the article and the project are developed. Both should be given time now that it has been established that the name is not purely an invention of the Society or the connected editor that created the article.  Dwpaul   Talk   03:17, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * P.S. - I took the liberty of marking 's comment as a !vote to Keep, since I am certain that is what they intended.  Dwpaul  Talk   03:34, 25 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Question If the IP was unable to post their rationale to open the discussion here, does that mean they are also unable to participate in the discussion once opened?  Dwpaul  Talk   03:17, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * No. Unregistered users can edit AFD pages, but cannot create them (like they can edit any (unprotected) article, but cannot create a new article). – anemone projectors – 12:13, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, then why is the unregistered user not responding to anything here? Why not explain anything?  I consider this one more data point on why unregistered users should not be allowed to open AFDs, period.  I do object to a registered user assisting in this, and probably not accepting responsibility either. -- do  ncr  am  23:17, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep The age of any organization has absolutely no relevance to notability.It passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:06, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:14, 26 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment: Call for closure with "Keep". There is no one supporting deletion here.  The nominator is editor Protonk, who takes no position on the AFD (and in my view should not have nominated this).  Protonk's nomination is on behalf of an I.P. editor who has not participated, and is unknown, and who seems not to have performed wp:BEFORE, and could have been completely uninformed.  If the I.P. editor was accountable, and was contacted, he/she could well choose to withdraw the nomination.  But there's no way to even contact them.  There is no coherent deletion rationale, and all coherent arguments are to Keep. -- do  ncr  am  23:22, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The nominator was 109.176.223.232, not Protonk. Protonk was simply following instructions and starting the discussion on 109.176.223.232's behalf because unregistered users cannot start AFD discussions. If Protonk hadn't started this, someone else would have done, as that's the procedure. – anemone projectors – 08:56, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Yep, I believe Protonk is not taking responsibility, and the I.P. editor is not taking responsiblity (and is even perhaps unaware of feedback to learn from that their nomination is being viewed as nonsense, and perhaps others would have served the undeserving I.P. if Protonk did not. Yep.  And I do call for closure, as no one is supporting deletion. -- do  ncr  am  00:52, 31 August 2014 (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.