- 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. Hog Farm Talk 04:57, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Clone town ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Essentially about one article by one not particularly lobbying organisation. The concept seems as though it ought to be noteworthy, and an international rather than UK-only phenomenon, but not on the evidence of what we have here. Kevin McE ( talk) 12:48, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:09, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
- I'd agree, except that a Google search also reveals an article in the Independent from 2015 [1]; they also used the term in another article in 2011; the Guardian used it in 2005 [2], which would be less convincing of persistent notability given that it was only coined in 2004. The Daily Mail used the term in 2010 [3] and while we do not regard the Mail as a reliable source (i.e. we don't believe that what it writes is true) it is undoubtedly a major national newspaper, so the fact it writes about a subject is supportive of the subject being notable. Given that a number of national newspapers have used the term over an extended period, it's got to be a keep. Elemimele ( talk) 19:00, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
- Keep - I'm finding enough out there from a basic search to support the notability of Clone town. For example these journal articles: [4], [5]; coverage in this book: [6]; BBC [7], Guardian [8], etc. Netherzone ( talk) 15:57, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 13:02, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 13:02, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Keep There is also media coverage of further such surveys, for example which so-labelled Dumfries in 2010 The Scotsman, 14 September 2010, BBC, 15 September 2010, and Glasgow Herald, 1 February 2021 referencing that finding as an impetus for subsequent change. As well as the NEF surveys which triggered much of the coverage discussed above, and its use as a discussion point in for example this 2016 article about the future of Milton Keynes, the term can be found in the UK-government-sponsored Portas review in 2011 (see Report, p9). Overall, enough for WP:GNG and possibility for expansion. AllyD ( talk) 15:26, 9 August 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.
- 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. Hog Farm Talk 04:57, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Clone town ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Essentially about one article by one not particularly lobbying organisation. The concept seems as though it ought to be noteworthy, and an international rather than UK-only phenomenon, but not on the evidence of what we have here. Kevin McE ( talk) 12:48, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:09, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
- I'd agree, except that a Google search also reveals an article in the Independent from 2015 [1]; they also used the term in another article in 2011; the Guardian used it in 2005 [2], which would be less convincing of persistent notability given that it was only coined in 2004. The Daily Mail used the term in 2010 [3] and while we do not regard the Mail as a reliable source (i.e. we don't believe that what it writes is true) it is undoubtedly a major national newspaper, so the fact it writes about a subject is supportive of the subject being notable. Given that a number of national newspapers have used the term over an extended period, it's got to be a keep. Elemimele ( talk) 19:00, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
- Keep - I'm finding enough out there from a basic search to support the notability of Clone town. For example these journal articles: [4], [5]; coverage in this book: [6]; BBC [7], Guardian [8], etc. Netherzone ( talk) 15:57, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 13:02, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 13:02, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Keep There is also media coverage of further such surveys, for example which so-labelled Dumfries in 2010 The Scotsman, 14 September 2010, BBC, 15 September 2010, and Glasgow Herald, 1 February 2021 referencing that finding as an impetus for subsequent change. As well as the NEF surveys which triggered much of the coverage discussed above, and its use as a discussion point in for example this 2016 article about the future of Milton Keynes, the term can be found in the UK-government-sponsored Portas review in 2011 (see Report, p9). Overall, enough for WP:GNG and possibility for expansion. AllyD ( talk) 15:26, 9 August 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.