Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Britain's Strongest Man

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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Britain's Strongest Man

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Request for a list of references was requested in March 2008. I've looked online for any references to an organization or event, but I can only find discussions in forums. This event does appear to have taken place, and does appear to have been shown on TV in the past, but no references appear to exist to support this article. Not sure what to do in this case, but an AfD appears to be possibly the only valid solution. HighKing (talk) 17:11, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Editors please note; this article has been PROD'd for one simple reason, it contains the words British Isles. The nominator is User:HighKing whose primary concern is to eliminate, or at least severely reduce, the instances of British Isles in Wikipedia. His reason for proposing deletion is not valid. There are almost a quarter of a million Google hits for the phrase "Britain's Strongest Man" and very many of them relate to the TV series of that name. Furthermore, the article is part of a series of articles detailing all aspects of "Strongest Man" competitions. This is nothing more than an egregious attempt to game the system. MidnightBlue (Talk) 18:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This user has been warned on multiple occasions about precisely this type of comment. This is untrue of my motives and in breach of multiple policies. --HighKing (talk) 12:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep I have seen the program before, so it is notable, and also, I support Midnight Blue's point of view. Minima c (talk) 18:12, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please find a citation? Saying you've seen it on the Telly doesn't make for a great reference or citation... --HighKing (talk) 12:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Every motive HighKing cites: "This event does appear to have taken place, and does appear to have been shown on TV in the past, but no references appear to exist to support this article. Not sure what to do in this case, but an AfD appears to be possibly the only valid solution" are reasons for finding more citations, not for a prod. Moloch09 (talk) 18:52, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great ... reasons for finding more citations. So can anyone find one? That is the point. There may be hundreds and thousands of hits, but no citations. None. Nada. So before blindly voting for keep, think about the fact you are electing to keep an article with no citations, and none can be found. You are correct that the best thing to do is to look for citations. I did already. I invite others to also do so. There has been a notice looking for references on this article for two years. The point we've reached now is, what do we do with an article with not one single citation? --HighKing (talk) 12:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious Keep. Annual event that has featured regularly on prime-time national television. Plenty of Google News coverage, and also a few from Google Books, e.g. Understanding Television, Glued to the Box by Clive James.--Michig (talk) 16:30, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - AS per above and many articles like this one. Sources abound. -- Whpq (talk) 17:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of repeating myself, I've not said that the event doesn't exist. In fact, I've explicitly said above that it does appear to have both existed and been on the telly. I've said that there are no citations for the article.

Exactly what do the links above mean to the article? Can we find a citation or reference describing the event? A citation for the winners? Anything besides it was on the Telly and that Derek Hobson was a host of a fetish of physical strength with sado-masochistic images of a body under duress? (not my words, but from the links above) --HighKing (talk) 17:52, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What are you looking for? We have an unreferenced article. It's one of many. Your nomination indicated that you could only find references in forums. The coverage in newspapers satisifies that concern. Your nomination indicates that you were concerned the event didn't take place. The newspaper articles covering winners shows taht it did in fact take place. What you are asking about now appears to be specific details that need verification. That's an editting concern and is not a reason for deletion. -- Whpq (talk) 18:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. Actually, it's what I suppose I was really asking. If an article has no references for any of the data such as history or past winners, but that there's enough references to denote notability, then I agree it's an editing concern and not for Afd. Thank you. --HighKing (talk) 19:33, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as this is a national event, seems a shame to delete it. GoodDay (talk) 18:10, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Very notable. I once competed myself. Mister Flash (talk) 18:28, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can we close this please? The event is notable. All other concerns are editing concerns and I withdraw this afd. --HighKing (talk) 19:33, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes close it, but you are so predictable HK. Now that the PROD has failed you've tried to remove British Isles via another route. Will you ever give up on this? MidnightBlue (Talk) 20:43, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Obviously notable competition, with tons of coverage. HighKing, your campaign against use of the term 'British Isles' is getting beyond a joke now. MickMacNee (talk) 12:49, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.