The result was merge and redirect to Smoking in England - ( NAC) - frankie ( talk) 21:57, 19 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Nominated on behalf of User:Christian1985 per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 June 18. I am neutral.— S Marshall T/ C 21:16, 18 June 2011 (UTC) reply
If I were arguing "keep", then I would say this: On Wikipedia, there is an objective test about whether or not something is notable, which is called the general notability guideline. Hugh Howitt would be notable, for Wikipedia's purposes, if there were significant coverage about him in reliable sources. The BBC is a reliable source, and the coverage is here and here. The Scotsman is a reliable source, and the coverage is here. The Blackpool Gazette is a reliable source, and the coverage is here. The Publican is a reliable source, and the coverage is here. Also, not cited in the article, the Manchester Evening News is a reliable source, and the coverage is here. Therefore there is significant coverage in reliable sources, so Hugh Howitt is notable.
But if I was arguing against keeping the article, I would point out that this is a biography of a living person. We have clear rules about those, and one of the rules talks about people who are only notable for one event.
So this AfD needs to consider questions like: What are the sources really about? Are they about Hugh Howitt, or are they about an event with which Hugh Howitt was involved? If we ought to have an article about the event rather than the person, then should we delete the article we already have, or would it be a better idea to convert it into a redirect to the event article?— S Marshall T/ C 22:41, 18 June 2011 (UTC) reply
After a smerge, though, if we delete the original article, then how will we be preserving attribution? All of our content is licenced under the CC-BY-SA and the GFDL, so the people who wrote Hugh Howitt are entitled to be credited as the author of the material. Normally we would do this by preserving the article's history under a redirect to Smoking ban in England. How will we do it if we delete Hugh Howitt before redirecting?— S Marshall T/ C 23:11, 18 June 2011 (UTC) reply
If the merge does go ahead, then I suggest the paragraph could be expanded a little, so as to allow the BBC sources to be used.— S Marshall T/ C 01:44, 19 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was merge and redirect to Smoking in England - ( NAC) - frankie ( talk) 21:57, 19 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Nominated on behalf of User:Christian1985 per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 June 18. I am neutral.— S Marshall T/ C 21:16, 18 June 2011 (UTC) reply
If I were arguing "keep", then I would say this: On Wikipedia, there is an objective test about whether or not something is notable, which is called the general notability guideline. Hugh Howitt would be notable, for Wikipedia's purposes, if there were significant coverage about him in reliable sources. The BBC is a reliable source, and the coverage is here and here. The Scotsman is a reliable source, and the coverage is here. The Blackpool Gazette is a reliable source, and the coverage is here. The Publican is a reliable source, and the coverage is here. Also, not cited in the article, the Manchester Evening News is a reliable source, and the coverage is here. Therefore there is significant coverage in reliable sources, so Hugh Howitt is notable.
But if I was arguing against keeping the article, I would point out that this is a biography of a living person. We have clear rules about those, and one of the rules talks about people who are only notable for one event.
So this AfD needs to consider questions like: What are the sources really about? Are they about Hugh Howitt, or are they about an event with which Hugh Howitt was involved? If we ought to have an article about the event rather than the person, then should we delete the article we already have, or would it be a better idea to convert it into a redirect to the event article?— S Marshall T/ C 22:41, 18 June 2011 (UTC) reply
After a smerge, though, if we delete the original article, then how will we be preserving attribution? All of our content is licenced under the CC-BY-SA and the GFDL, so the people who wrote Hugh Howitt are entitled to be credited as the author of the material. Normally we would do this by preserving the article's history under a redirect to Smoking ban in England. How will we do it if we delete Hugh Howitt before redirecting?— S Marshall T/ C 23:11, 18 June 2011 (UTC) reply
If the merge does go ahead, then I suggest the paragraph could be expanded a little, so as to allow the BBC sources to be used.— S Marshall T/ C 01:44, 19 June 2011 (UTC) reply