Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vale of Clwyd


 * 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 speedy keep. Consensus is clearly to keep, to prolong this is to prolong an eventual actuality. (non-admin closure) Celestina007 (talk) 23:49, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Vale of Clwyd

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

I think the article lacks quite a lot of clarity, appears to be original research with not many references and would be better placed either in the Denbighshire article or Wales article for a valleys/vale tab? While the name does exist, its actual stance and significance are not very clear and likely better off mentioned in county article? DragonofBatley (talk) 22:21, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. DragonofBatley (talk) 22:21, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. DragonofBatley (talk) 22:21, 15 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep - even the most elementary search throws up plenty of RSs which are not associated with the political entity. This is a very commonly used name for the whole of the Valley of the River Clwyd south of St. Asaph and is used by BBC, ITV the local and National Press and is universally recognised as a significant geographical entity in North Wales. This article does not do it justice and could be greatly improved, but that is not a sound reason for an AfD nomination.  Velella  Velella Talk 23:37, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep A well used and recognised term for an area of Wales, as shown by the sources. No valid reason for deletion. Pam  D  08:45, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep - I can't believe anyone is even considering deleting this article. It can of course be improved like all articles, and time would be better spent doing that than debating its potential deletion! Geopersona (talk) 08:49, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep - Per new sources. FOARP (talk) 11:07, 16 December 2021 (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.