Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Queen's Award for Enterprise: International Trade (Export) (1966)


 * 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 all. The creator of these articles is the only user participating here who sees any merit to them. I would add that the level of personal acrimony expressed here has no place in a deletion discussion. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:33, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

The Queen's Award for Enterprise: International Trade (Export) (1966)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Contested prods. In September 2010, Rich Farmbrough automatically created over 100 articles on individual years and subawards for Queen's Awards for Enterprise. However, these unauthorized bot creations were empty and unreferenced pages, and were incorrect. For the years 1966 to 1975, only one award existed, The Queen's Award to Industry. Rich Farmbrough created three individual articles for each year, with "The Queen's Award for Enterprise: International Trade (Export)", "The Queen's Award for Enterprise: Innovation (Technology)" and "The Queen's Award for Enterprise: Export & Technology (Combined)". None of these titles ever existed, they are fictional subgroupings based on the reasons given for the one real award. For that reason (incorrect, mostly empty articles created in violation of policy) I propose to delete these. Fram (talk) 09:59, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Also nominated are:
 * The Queen's Award for Enterprise: International Trade (Export) (1967)
 * The Queen's Award for Enterprise: International Trade (Export) (1968)
 * The Queen's Award for Enterprise: International Trade (Export) (1969)
 * The Queen's Award for Enterprise: International Trade (Export) (1970)
 * The Queen's Award for Enterprise: International Trade (Export) (1971)
 * The Queen's Award for Enterprise: International Trade (Export) (1972)
 * The Queen's Award for Enterprise: International Trade (Export) (1973)
 * The Queen's Award for Enterprise: International Trade (Export) (1974)
 * The Queen's Award for Enterprise: International Trade (Export) (1975)
 * The Queen's Award for Enterprise: Export & Technology (Combined) (1967)
 * The Queen's Award for Enterprise: Export & Technology (Combined) (1968)
 * The Queen's Award for Enterprise: Export & Technology (Combined) (1969)
 * The Queen's Award for Enterprise: Export & Technology (Combined) (1970)
 * The Queen's Award for Enterprise: Export & Technology (Combined) (1971)
 * The Queen's Award for Enterprise: Export & Technology (Combined) (1972)
 * The Queen's Award for Enterprise: Export & Technology (Combined) (1973)
 * The Queen's Award for Enterprise: Export & Technology (Combined) (1975)
 * The Queen's Award for Enterprise: Innovation (Technology) (1966)
 * The Queen's Award for Enterprise: Innovation (Technology) (1967)
 * The Queen's Award for Enterprise: Innovation (Technology) (1968)
 * The Queen's Award for Enterprise: Innovation (Technology) (1969)
 * The Queen's Award for Enterprise: Innovation (Technology) (1970)
 * The Queen's Award for Enterprise: Innovation (Technology) (1971)
 * The Queen's Award for Enterprise: Innovation (Technology) (1972)
 * The Queen's Award for Enterprise: Innovation (Technology) (1974)
 * The Queen's Award for Enterprise: Innovation (Technology) (1975)


 * Delete them all hasn't Rich Farmbrough been sanctioned for this before? Rich should not be making masses of clumsy botlike edits like these articles, per Rich's sanctions and general housekeeping these articles should all be deleted-- Lerd the nerd wiki defender  10:10, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * These were created before anyone had suggested an editing restriction. Of the complete set of articles, a significant proportion have been populated - see this table:


 * Rich Farmbrough, 22:34, 24th day of January in the year 2011 (UTC).


 *  Merge all articles (empty or not) into one list for containing details for all years and awards.Polyamorph (talk) 12:46, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * How would you merge an empty article with no sources and an incorrect title into anything? It isn't even a plausible redirect... Fram (talk) 13:02, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * My point is that there should just be one article listing these awards, not a seperate article for every single year. Delete the seperate articles and instead have one single article listing all the awards. But maybe this is unfeasable because there are too many awards? Polyamorph (talk) 13:21, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying, I had interpreted your comment differently. There are at first sight some 100+ recipients per year, so one large list is probably unfeasible. Fram (talk) 13:26, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, if there are fewer awards for the earlier years then perhaps the earlier years can be grouped by decade or something. Eitherway I agree these empty articles should be deleted. Polyamorph (talk) 13:47, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete One single list article, which already exists, is plenty. Sharktapus (talk) 13:53, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * These pages were created precisely because the "single list article" was a mess. If, when the by year and category articles are completed, you were to wish to make a FMTB combined article i would be happy to help, although I am more used to breaking up massive lists into sub articles. Rich Farmbrough, 22:43, 24th day of January in the year 2011 (UTC).


 * Delete all per nominator. &mdash; RHaworth 15:23, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete, please, and look for more such no-content creations. Abductive  (reasoning) 19:00, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: I have now also added to this nomination The Queen's Award for Enterprise: Export & Technology (Combined) (1966), which was speedy deleted but has now been recreated (with the same incorrect title, and partial contents). Fram (talk) 21:03, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * In what way are the contents "partial?" Even if they were incompleteness is not a reason to delete, nor is a naming issue. Rich Farmbrough, 22:09, 24th day of January in the year 2011 (UTC).


 * They were incomplete at the time of my note. And when you create three fancifully named articles (with double disambiguation, no less) for what is actually one award with a different name, then deletion is the way to go. You could have easily created one exact article and populated that once you became aware of the problems, instead of spending time populating three articles to be merged afterwards anyway leaving us with three ridiculous redirects because you violated policy when creating these pages. Fram (talk) 07:39, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You are correct, the list was only 15/18 complete. You must have checked the source, and rather than adding the couple of missing items... well - another reason to put in the AfD, great! Rich Farmbrough, 11:01, 25th day of January in the year 2011 (UTC).


 * Why would I add missing items to an article I believe should be deleted? I am not interested in wasting my time on adding content to doomed articles. Fram (talk) 11:06, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep The naming of an article is never a good deletion reason, it is a move reason. Lack of content is also not a good reason, note the the nominator has been trying to persuade an editor to stop supplying content, on the grounds that the article is at afd. This is either circular reasoning or tendentious advice. Rich Farmbrough, 22:43, 24th day of January in the year 2011 (UTC).


 * I've seen invented names deleted at AfD. Abductive  (reasoning) 00:12, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe, but I stand by what I said "The naming of an article is never a good deletion reason it is a move reason". In this case the series lists are partially complete, removing the apparatus means that anyone wishing to start work or add an entry needs must build the page from scratch and hence deletion is not useful. If consistent naming across the years is seen as revisionist (the name is the current name of the award/category with the previous category in brackets for clarity (or the equivalent designation for combined) - as used by the administrative body) then it is a simple matter to do the appropriate page moves, via an RM or boldly. Attempting to get the pages speedied, prodded and afd'd without notice to the creator is not the way to change the page name. Rich Farmbrough, 02:20, 25th day of January in the year 2011 (UTC).


 * It was noted at the Prod and at the ANI section about your actions that these articles had incorrect names. You removed the prod stating "Contrary to the Prod reason given on most of these pages no invalid year/award combinations have been created". Considering that you have here three incorrect pages for one award, a page move isn't possible, and as the pages were empty before the speedies and pords started, there was nothing to move or merge anyway. Starting from scratch is by fat the better option. Fram (talk) 07:33, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: The Queen's Award for Enterprise: Innovation (Technology) (1973) now also added to this nomination (it was deleted at the time of the original nomination, but rather pointlessly recreated now). Fram (talk) 07:33, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You should then start a new AfD to allow time for proper discussion, since that page is complete. Also saying it is "pointless" assumes that this AfD will result in deletion, which seems unlikely as the only significant claim was lack of content which is neither a ground for deleting an article in creation, nor even applicable to several of the nominated articles. Rich Farmbrough, 10:44, 25th day of January in the year 2011 (UTC).


 * That you don't consider the plain fact that you created three articles per year with fanciful names, when in reality there was only one award with a different title, as significant is telling. That you consider articles from September 2010 as "articles in creation" is rather bizarre as well. The only reason you are now frantically ading data to these incorrect articles is because of the deletion nominations; but because lack of data was only one of the significant reasons for this nomination, and because the other one can not be corrected by normal editing, they will still be deleted. Why you can't just create the articles as one per year, with the correct title, and spend your efoorts in populating them there, is beyond me, but it surely gives the impression that you are more interested in proving a point than in actually making Wikipedia better. Fram (talk) 11:03, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well I am not adding information "frantically", my preferred method is to provide a full and complete list for each year and category. This contrasts with the previous ad-hoc approach of putting all winners, as they were found, into a big table.  I am sorry that you think it is not possible to simply merge articles by year, but it is indeed extremely straightforward, and something I may well do if there is no consensus against it.  Rich Farmbrough, 11:11, 25th day of January in the year 2011 (UTC).


 * Any reason why you not just create one article per year, and fill those, instead of creating three misnamed articles per year, filling those, and then merging them to one correctly named one afterwards? The result of your current action, assuming that anyone gets convinced by this convoluted process, is that we end up with three rather ridiculous redirects and a lot of extra work... Fram (talk) 12:01, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You end up having fun at AfD... which is clearly the sort of thing you love.
 * So no reason at all. Great job wasting everybody's time yet again. As for me loving AfD: not only is that an irrelevant remark and a total non-response to the question of why you don't do something, but it also ignores the fact that I Prod'ded these articles, which you opposed. I would have preferred to avoid these AfDs, but not to the point of letting made-up subjects stand on Wikipedia. You had every chance of preventing these AfDs, but you refused to take that chance, instead trying to defend the indefensible. Fram (talk) 07:35, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It is you that's wasting time with spurious deletion debates. Rich Farmbrough, 13:19, 27th day of January in the year 2011 (UTC).


 * Note. Finally, the last missing article, The Queen's Award for Enterprise: Export & Technology (Combined) (1974), is also added to this nomination. At the time of the originanl nomination, this article had an incorrect category so it didn't show up with the others. The main reasons for deletion (award as indicated in the title doesn't exist, there was only one award that year, not three separate ones, and the article was created contrary to policy and then abandoned). Furthermore, this is an article only to state that the subject of the article doesn't exist. Fram (talk) 13:35, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * There are three categories. Rich Farmbrough, 00:21, 26th day of January in the year 2011 (UTC).


 * Which match the newer awards somewhat, but don't match the old one, which is the topic of this AfD. We don't build articles to match the categories. Fram (talk) 07:35, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * There are three categories of award, the categories are referred to as such ("applicants have been able to win Awards in each category in the same year") in the documentation. Pettifogging over whether the names are of the categories of award or of separate awards is fine for detailed discussion of article naming, but not for AfD. Rich Farmbrough, 13:18, 27th day of January in the year 2011 (UTC).


 * What "documentation"? You don't seem to have provided any, so it is very unclear where your quote is supposed to come from. The source I gave in the nomination though, clearly states that "The Queen's Award to Industry was replaced in 1976 by two separate Awards - The Queen's Award for Export Achievement and The Queen's Award for Technological Achievement". Your articles don't reflect that change from one to two awards (they act as if there were three awards from beginning to end), and neither do they have the correct name of the awards (clearly not before 1976, i.e. the ones nominated in this first AfD, but also afterwards, where you have e.g. the hideous "The Queen's Award for Enterprise: International Trade (Export)" instead of "The Queen's Award for Export Achievement" or the later name "The Queen's Award for Enterprise: International Trade"). The one Award that existed before 1976 could be given for outstanding achievements in increasing export, technological innovation, or both, but that just means that there were two distinct possible reasons for giving that award to a company, not that there were different awards. An imaginary division of one real award in three ones with made-up names isn't really "quibbling over details", it is the difference between a verifiable article subject and nonsense, and a perfectly normal subject for AfD.
 * The documentation IS the source you gave, the details of which I had previously used as a source for the main article. The naming detail is explained in the main article, you can improve that if you wish.  Whether individual list articles, at whatever level of granularity should cover the naming history is of course open to debate, but I would say, by and large, not. Rich Farmbrough, 21:22, 27th day of January in the year 2011 (UTC).


 * Rich Farmbrough, you are being extremely deceitful in your quoting here. You used the phrase "applicants have been able to win Awards in each category in the same year" in your defense of these above. However, you just happened to forget to quote the complete sentence, which is a whopping two words longer; "Since 1976, applicants have been able to win Awards in each category in the same year" (my emphasis). Considering that this AfD is for the award from before 1976, it could hardly have been any clearer that your selective quote was not applicable to your defense, and is actually an argument against it. Please avoid such poor tactics in the future. Fram (talk) 10:49, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It is not "my defense" or "tactics" - I am aware that you seem to treat WP as a battleground, and come bouyed from apparently vanquishing an editor from the field, but that is not what it is, nor how I treat it. You insist in treating my explanations as attacks, whereas I am simply acquainting you with facts of which you were previously unaware - since you have not worked in this area before. Similarly with the Seaton Hall Reports, before considering the steps you took, I read extensively and realised that apparently odd phrases were significant as the WP editor claimed. Back to the substantive matter  - since 1976 they can win an award in each category, before that they could only win one, the other, or the combined award. The distinction between the three types, classes, designations, descriptions, narratives  or categories of award is clear, and is promulgated in the document.  The distinction has always been there - it is not an arbitrary one I dreamed up.  Nor indeed are is the naming convention, although of course the names have changed over the years, as explained in the lead of the article, a matter I am familiar with, and I am happy to consider renaming or merging these pages, in fact I will very likely do it regardless of the AfD unless the pages are deleted of course.  And this is the point, the crux if you will. A polite and friendly note on my page saying that you perceived an anomaly in having consistent naming for the pages when the name of the Awards has changed would have perhaps moved me to view you in a more positive light, whereas applying prods to all the articles, which I then had to go and contest simply reinforces the impression that what you are trying to achieve is based on a more combative attitude.  Every attempt I make to explain something to you meets with "push back" - all I ever see is criticism and stalking of my edits and projects looking for problems. When you can't find any you trawl back months and look for redirects to take to RfD.  That is why I do not look forward to your comments on my talk page, or when I am in conversation with another editor on theirs  - they are wholly negative, and suck all the air from the discussion.  I still read them but they are not welcome, and unless you change your attitude to a collegial rather that combative one they, and you, will continue to be unwelcome there.  Rich Farmbrough, 16:28, 28th day of January in the year 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.