- 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:39, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
- Building Engineering Services Association ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
per WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. I couldn't find any sources that meet the standards required of WP:RS (and hence WP:GNG) Kavdiamanju ( talk) 08:45, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
can you please explain why this is up for deletion? The Association (which has been around since 1904) is well documented and is a major player in the UK specialist contractor sector in the construction industry. It has changed its name, removing the "and", so I created a new page and copied it across. The name change is verified here:
http://www.coolingpost.com/uk-news/bes-becomes-besa/
I guess the same result would happen by changing the name of the original page Building and Engineering Services Association by removing the " and " text. I don't know how to do that, so help to change the title would be appreciated. user:sourswoken
- This is a title fork of Building and Engineering Services Association. Delete the [not and] fork and move the [and] article to the [non and] title. — teb728 t c 09:43, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
- Comment
This can be done without admin rights. You just paste the redirect text over the old one. I just did it. Apparently you had done it too, but someone had apparently undone you because "Blanking page instead of moving article and keeping the history intact". I have no idea what the person meant by that. Moving a page just creates a new copy article with the new name and then pastes the move text over the old one. It can be done manually as well.-- Mr. Magoo and McBarker ( talk) 10:36, 3 February 2016 (UTC) - Speedy Keep The old page now a redirect and the multiple citations from it added to this one. -- Mr. Magoo and McBarker ( talk) 10:54, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
- comment It appears that a number of the contributors to this mess don't understand that attribution must be maintained (see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia), and that a cut-and-paste move is a copyright violation, which is why a move should be done by the move function, rather than by cut-and-paste. I have no comment on the notability question. - David Biddulph ( talk) 11:55, 3 February 2016 (UTC
Administrator note I have deleted the copyright violation, moved the original page to this title and replaced the AfD message. Please continue to discuss whether the article is able to meet Wikipedia's article guidelines and policies. --
Malcolmxl5 (
talk)
12:29, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
- Comment (I'm aware the article was moved while I was writing this, but figured I could still comment on that part of the whole mess) As the person who reverted the change to the original page - I was about to move the original page to the new name for the reason David Biddulph has already mentioned above (I would have moved the new page to another name first and then requested a speedy deletion for it), but by that time, the new page had already been marked for deletion, and I didn't want to mess with it. That's why I at least restored the orignal article... Not sure why some seem to think that was the wrong thing to do? KungAvSand ( talk) 12:37, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
- What you did was OK. it was others who were confused. - David Biddulph ( talk) 12:44, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
- Comment I apologize for the mistake, but I hope you noticed he had made some additions and changes to the page? Because I can't see those anymore. -- Mr. Magoo and McBarker ( talk) 12:42, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
- The page was deleted at the author's request (he placed a PROD on it asking for it to be deleted to make way for a move) as well as the copyright violation. That request will include other edits he made. Regardless of any addition, the page remained an unambiguous copyright violation and would still be deleted on that basis. -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 13:03, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, perfectly clear, I were just wondering/making sure admins don't have some special access to deleted bits. -- Mr. Magoo and McBarker ( talk) 13:13, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep The BESA is a long-established industry organisation. The apparent lack of reliable sources to meet WP:GNG is perhaps largely explained by the change of name from the HVCA in 2012 and then the recent tweak to its name to drop the ampersand. I've made some edits and added some citations to expand the pre-BESA history. Paul W ( talk) 13:47, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:52, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep This association is one of the largest in the specialist engineering sector. It seems the deletion was marked simply because of a misunderstanding on the page name change - copy /paste to new page, rather than a move. The deletion would then have allowed the move to take place. Since the move has now happened, the deletion notice should be removed. Nextraterly ( talk) 10:21, 5 February 2016 (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.
- 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:39, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
- Building Engineering Services Association ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
per WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. I couldn't find any sources that meet the standards required of WP:RS (and hence WP:GNG) Kavdiamanju ( talk) 08:45, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
can you please explain why this is up for deletion? The Association (which has been around since 1904) is well documented and is a major player in the UK specialist contractor sector in the construction industry. It has changed its name, removing the "and", so I created a new page and copied it across. The name change is verified here:
http://www.coolingpost.com/uk-news/bes-becomes-besa/
I guess the same result would happen by changing the name of the original page Building and Engineering Services Association by removing the " and " text. I don't know how to do that, so help to change the title would be appreciated. user:sourswoken
- This is a title fork of Building and Engineering Services Association. Delete the [not and] fork and move the [and] article to the [non and] title. — teb728 t c 09:43, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
- Comment
This can be done without admin rights. You just paste the redirect text over the old one. I just did it. Apparently you had done it too, but someone had apparently undone you because "Blanking page instead of moving article and keeping the history intact". I have no idea what the person meant by that. Moving a page just creates a new copy article with the new name and then pastes the move text over the old one. It can be done manually as well.-- Mr. Magoo and McBarker ( talk) 10:36, 3 February 2016 (UTC) - Speedy Keep The old page now a redirect and the multiple citations from it added to this one. -- Mr. Magoo and McBarker ( talk) 10:54, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
- comment It appears that a number of the contributors to this mess don't understand that attribution must be maintained (see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia), and that a cut-and-paste move is a copyright violation, which is why a move should be done by the move function, rather than by cut-and-paste. I have no comment on the notability question. - David Biddulph ( talk) 11:55, 3 February 2016 (UTC
Administrator note I have deleted the copyright violation, moved the original page to this title and replaced the AfD message. Please continue to discuss whether the article is able to meet Wikipedia's article guidelines and policies. --
Malcolmxl5 (
talk)
12:29, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
- Comment (I'm aware the article was moved while I was writing this, but figured I could still comment on that part of the whole mess) As the person who reverted the change to the original page - I was about to move the original page to the new name for the reason David Biddulph has already mentioned above (I would have moved the new page to another name first and then requested a speedy deletion for it), but by that time, the new page had already been marked for deletion, and I didn't want to mess with it. That's why I at least restored the orignal article... Not sure why some seem to think that was the wrong thing to do? KungAvSand ( talk) 12:37, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
- What you did was OK. it was others who were confused. - David Biddulph ( talk) 12:44, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
- Comment I apologize for the mistake, but I hope you noticed he had made some additions and changes to the page? Because I can't see those anymore. -- Mr. Magoo and McBarker ( talk) 12:42, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
- The page was deleted at the author's request (he placed a PROD on it asking for it to be deleted to make way for a move) as well as the copyright violation. That request will include other edits he made. Regardless of any addition, the page remained an unambiguous copyright violation and would still be deleted on that basis. -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 13:03, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, perfectly clear, I were just wondering/making sure admins don't have some special access to deleted bits. -- Mr. Magoo and McBarker ( talk) 13:13, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep The BESA is a long-established industry organisation. The apparent lack of reliable sources to meet WP:GNG is perhaps largely explained by the change of name from the HVCA in 2012 and then the recent tweak to its name to drop the ampersand. I've made some edits and added some citations to expand the pre-BESA history. Paul W ( talk) 13:47, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:52, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep This association is one of the largest in the specialist engineering sector. It seems the deletion was marked simply because of a misunderstanding on the page name change - copy /paste to new page, rather than a move. The deletion would then have allowed the move to take place. Since the move has now happened, the deletion notice should be removed. Nextraterly ( talk) 10:21, 5 February 2016 (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.