Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nottinghamshire v Yorkshire 26 June 2005

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 of the debate was keep. I count a total of 31 votes - 3 to delete; 13 straight keep; 1 "keep but move", 1 "move or keep", 5 straight merge, 1 "merge or keep", 1 "merge or delete", 6 to transwiki. Therefore, 16 votes (a 1-vote majority) include "keep" as an option. -- BD2412 talk 16:13, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Nottinghamshire v Yorkshire 26 June 2005, Leicestershire v Durham 26 June 2005, Gloucestershire v Worcestershire 26 June 2005, Essex v Sussex 26 June 2005

Delete. A group of articles on individual, non-notable sports events. -- BD2412 talk June 28, 2005 21:26 (UTC)

  • Keep. One, they're part of a series of articles on the season (2005 English cricket season). Two - in my opinion they're notable, they've got four-figure crowds watching them live - plus a number of people watching on TV. Btw, I'm the writer of the articles in question. Sam Vimes 28 June 2005 21:38 (UTC)
    • Sorry, but in the US, minor league baseball teams sometimes draw over 10,000 people (I was at a regular-season minor-league game a few years ago that drew over 14,000, for a game with no significant promotions), and their leagues' seasons don't even get articles, much less individual contests. NFL games often draw over 70,000 people, with millions of fans watching on TV (particularly with Monday Night Football), yet they don't get articles either, aside from the Super Bowl. --Idont Havaname 29 June 2005 00:02 (UTC)
      • Because they haven't been written or because they have been deleted? Subtle difference there... Sam Vimes 29 June 2005 07:49 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. As Sam says, these are part of a series of articles on the 2005 English cricket season - and the series (taken as a whole) is about a notable subject. Wikipedia is leading the net in its encyclopaedic knowledge here: it is months ahead of Wisden, and can present information in a much more user-friendly way, jguk 28 June 2005 21:46 (UTC)
    • Comment, Wisden for those of you who don't know it, is a cricket reference book published annually, with content similar to this. Sam Vimes 28 June 2005 21:48 (UTC)
      • I was not aware that these were part of a series, but I remain uncomfortable with the idea of having articles on individual athletic contests - there over 1,200 NBA games and over 2,400 MLB games every year (many of which have significant attendance or a large TV audience), and I am wondering how this does not justify individual articles for each of those games. -- BD2412 talk June 28, 2005 22:00 (UTC)
        • And exactly why is that a problem? Sam Vimes 28 June 2005 22:01 (UTC)
        • Having just today returned to WP, I am disappointed to see this attempt to destroy days and days worth of hard work just because BD2412 feels uncomfortable. There's no doubt that Sam and I are good constructive WP users trying to create a section of WP that will be useful to many in many years to come. I trust other WPians will not wish to see all that work destroyed on a whim, jguk 28 June 2005 22:03 (UTC)
          • You appear to be lost and wandering the hallways of the wrong project. The Cricket section of the newspaper, where news reports on Cricket matches belong, is over there. Uncle G June 29, 2005 21:17 (UTC)
          • To be honest, and although I have contributed several articles to the 2005 English cricket season series myself, I think BD2412 is right to feel uncomfortable. These articles are not especially notable on their own. They are notable as part of the series we have been constructing, which is why they should remain where they were before User:Bryan_Derksen's tampering. --Ngb 28 June 2005 22:12 (UTC)
            • I wasn't "tampering", Wikipedia:Subpages is quite clear that the use of subpages in the article namespace is frowned on and I raised the issue in Talk:2005 English cricket season#Subpages first with plenty of time for objections to be raised. The only one was that these pages might wind up on VfD, as it turns out they have, and my response is that if the articles are deleteworthy it hardly matters what title they're under; using subpages to "hide" articles from facing VfD is not a valid usage IMO. Bryan 29 June 2005 01:00 (UTC)
            • There were clear objections from us when you raised the issue three weeks ago there, and also when you tried again on Village pump (policy). It looks to me that most people would be happy for these 'articles' to be merged, which is exactly what we were doing with the transcluded subpages. --Ngb 29 June 2005 10:24 (UTC)
              • As I have already pointed out elsewhere (including on my talk page where you left a note about this specific point), I consider the transclusion issue to be completely separate from the subpages issue. The subpage policy is IMO quite clear, the transclusion one is not, so it was the transclusion issue that I raised on the village pump. I wasn't "trying again", I was addressing something else entirely. And I even said this explicitly at the time in Talk:2005 English cricket season#Subpages. What else do you need to clarify this? Bryan 29 June 2005 23:47 (UTC)
          • I'm sorry that this nomination upsets those who have worked on these articles, but I assure you that I never nominate articles for deletion on a whim, nor am I attempting to destroy anyone's hard work. I have no objection to the preservation of the information if the articles are merged, I simply do not feel that individual matches are sufficiently notable to merit articles. The nomination alone will have no effect on these articles unless a significant majority of the voters in this vfd so decide. If there is a consensus to merge, I will gladly help with that process. -- BD2412 talk June 29, 2005 00:53 (UTC)
            • How would you feel if these articles were moved back to the subpages they originally were at? --Ngb 29 June 2005 10:24 (UTC)
              • I have no objection to that, and I see nothing wrong with having subpages of major articles - Wikipedia should be that flexible. -- BD2412 talk June 29, 2005 13:23 (UTC)
                • FWIW, I'd like them to be at subpages as well, I don't think they are substantial enough to stand alone in the main articlespace. Sam Vimes 29 June 2005 13:50 (UTC)
  • Keep, but move back to subpages, These were originally subpages of 2005 English cricket season from where they were transcluded into articles (indeed, they don't make much sense out of the context of those articles). User:Bryan_Derksen has taken it upon himself to unilaterally move them into the main articlespace with no discussion or consensus. I have asked him to clarify why he did this but have as yet received no response. Our intention at the Cricket WikiProject has been to have these subpages transcluded into the various articles under 2005 English cricket season (Durham County Cricket Club in 2005, Essex County Cricket Club in 2005, Bangladeshis in England in 2005, etc.) as part of the ongoing process of writing complete articles. These articles should be moved back to being subpages rather than deleted. --Ngb 28 June 2005 22:09 (UTC)
    • That was because of the conclusion apparently reached here, Wikipedia_talk:Template_namespace#Any_discussion_still_ongoing.3F and that no one objected to it at the time Sam Vimes 28 June 2005 22:13 (UTC)
      • I must say I would have objected, if he'd stated that in the same place as the discussion of it was going on in the first place (Village pump (policy)). I have desperately tried not to assume bad faith with this user but his sustained attacks on our efforts to improve Wikipedia's cricket coverage are becoming very wearing. --Ngb 28 June 2005 22:17 (UTC)
      • Actually, I drew the conclusion based on lack of objection or further discussion at Talk:2005_English_cricket_season#Subpages. The template issue was IMO a separate thing, I haven't touched any of that yet. And I'm getting rather tired of being accused of "attacking" Wikipedia's cricket coverage, myself. Bryan 29 June 2005 01:00 (UTC)
  • Merge into one article, if not the main 2005 English cricket season article itself. Having information about each match in a season is fine, but having each separate match in its own article is a bit over the top. -- Francs2000 | Talk 28 June 2005 22:22 (UTC)
    • The point is that each match account is transcluded into several articles (for instance, a report of a match between Durham County Cricket Club and Derbyshire County Cricket Club might be transcluded into Frizzell County Championship Division Two in 2005, Durham County Cricket Club in 2005 and Derbyshire County Cricket Club in 2005. Our intention is ultimately to produce reviews of the season targetted to each competition and competing club. (But I agree that each match having its own article is over-the-top, which is why we had got them in subpages of 2005 English cricket season until the season is concluded and each season-review article can be finished off.) --Ngb 28 June 2005 22:24 (UTC)
      • Note - it is possible to link to a specific section within a larger article, which would have essentially the same effect. -- BD2412 talk June 29, 2005 01:18 (UTC)
        • It wouldn't have quite the same effect. At the moment what we have is the account of the game between Team X and Team Y in the Z Cup transcluded into an article on Team X's season, an article on Team Y's season, and an article on this year's Z Cup. (You can see this in action from the various articles linked off to from 2005 English cricket season.) A merged article '2005 English cricket season' containing all these match reports (note that there are more than mentioned here) would be very confusing and certainly breach Wikipedia's guidelines on article length. --Ngb 29 June 2005 10:29 (UTC)
          • How about if they were merged by week, as opposed to by season? -- BD2412 talk June 29, 2005 13:23 (UTC)
            • That still doesn't help, all we can do then is link, not transclude. I realise that transclusion isn't a very neat way of forming articles, but it is less time-consuming for us as editors than writing individual bits from each point of view (both sides, the league in which it belongs, plus the season page) after every game - rather than doing the entire rewrite when the season is over. Sam Vimes 29 June 2005 13:50 (UTC)
  • Keep, as per arguments above, or return to the original format. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopaedia. In the grand scheme of things these are far more notable than DS9 episodes or Pokemon characters. Guettarda 28 June 2005 22:27 (UTC)
  • Keep or return to original format per other keep votes. Kappa 28 June 2005 22:47 (UTC)
  • Merge or Weak delete, sets nasty precedent toward every sporting event having an article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind June 28, 2005 22:53 (UTC)
    • Once again I would clarify that those of us who are actually working on these series did not start these as individual articles for individual matches, but as subpages transcluded into articles about sporting *seasons*. --Ngb 28 June 2005 23:07 (UTC)
  • Merge per Starblind. Only significant sporting events should have articles, not individual regular-season matches. I mean, I have no intention of creating an article on tonight's Baltimore Orioles-New York Yankees game. And it doesn't seem to me that cricket has nearly as large a fan base as baseball... --Idont Havaname 28 June 2005 23:54 (UTC)
    • Please see my other comments above about the *season* reviews that these match accounts are transcluded into. This isn't really the place to debate the relative popularities' of sports, but I would note there are a few countries in a little place called South Asia where I hear cricket's quite popular. Go to a Test match at Eden Gardens in Kolkata with 100,000 very noisy fans of Indian and *then* tell me cricket's not a popular sport. --Ngb 29 June 2005 00:13 (UTC)
      • "little place called South Asia"? No personal attacks. Also, South Asia != the UK, and these articles are on UK matches. And I'm not debating the relative popularities of sports; no other sport that I know of, regardless of popularity, would get information about individual regular-season matches included on this site. I've looked at Manchester United, several Major League Baseball teams, the National Football League, Monday Night Football, and other sports articles. But not being able to necessarily gauge the popularity of cricket on a worldwide scale (few of my American friends even know what it is), I still voted merge based on precedents set by articles such as NFL playoffs, 2004-05 and 2004 World Series. --Idont Havaname 29 June 2005 07:40 (UTC)
        • That really wasn't a personal attack, just a choice of phrasing. You make some good points (and some bad ones: the knowledge of your 'American friends' certainly isn't one of my criteria for what should go into Wikipedia!) but I won't attempt to answer them here because as I say above this isn't really the place. (I will happily respond on my Talk if you want!) I really think the reason other sports don't have this coverage is because Wikipedians haven't tried. I (and other participants in the WikiProject) believe this is a fantastic asset to Wikipedia's cricket coverage: it's something that's not available anywhere else, and when the season is over and we get the various articles finished it will be the only place people can come to look if they want detailed accounts of a club's performance through a season. --Ngb 29 June 2005 10:34 (UTC)
    • You are welcome (indeed, encouraged) to write a Wikinews article on the Baltimore Orioles-New York Yankees game. Uncle G June 29, 2005 21:17 (UTC)
  • Keep. They don't seem any less notable to me than many of the articles Wikipedia has on individual episodes of television series. Don't return to original subpage format, Wikipedia:Subpages is very clear that they shouldn't be used in the article namespace like this. Bryan 29 June 2005 00:50 (UTC)
  • Keep per Ngb. Christopher Parham (talk) 2005 June 29 00:54 (UTC)
  • Keep although I think they should go back to subpages temporarily as the authors intended. I understand that Wikipedia:Subpages says that "The only accepted use for subpages in the encyclopedia namespace is for making drafts of major article revisions", but I think that the spirit of this particular effort is that these are part of a major article revision, and are not a permanent "hierarchical organisation of articles". If going back to subpages is not possible, keep them as separate articles for now but please merge them when the time is right. DS1953 29 June 2005 02:55 (UTC)
  • merge to 2005 English cricket season. Just link within that article if you want to link to the games. Brighterorange 29 June 2005 03:44 (UTC)
  • Merge to 2005 English cricket season. JamesBurns 29 June 2005 05:54 (UTC)
  • Keep FWIW. =Nichalp «Talk»= June 29, 2005 07:51 (UTC)
  • Keep. Especially in original form, if someone with the know how will ascertain whether such practise does not put a strain on servers. I think it's a wonderful use of the technology available, and yes, why not expand it out to all sports if they so desire. Why shouldn't wikipedia attempt to collate such information? If we can have articles on people who have fought Wolverine, on minor pokemon characters, on episodes of television programmes and on bloggers, why should we seek to exclude sporting events, which are arguably more notable than all of the above, given the prevalence of sports pages in newspapers. Perhaps the use of the subpages in this way should be put into a policy/guidline proposal, but I see no reason for not doing it other than that nobody thought of it before. Hiding 29 June 2005 08:18 (UTC)
    • given the prevalence of sports pages in newspapers — Exactly the point. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Wikinews is the newspaper (and takes all of the match reports you can give). Wikipedia is the encyclopaedia. Uncle G June 29, 2005 21:17 (UTC)
      • Sports reference books such as Wisden give articles similar to these, too, and they're published six months after the event - suggesting that they're not ephemeral. Plus, these articles are only there to act as "feeder" articles for the bigger picture articles (which is why people have argued they should be subpages). No newspaper would publish a detailed review of the entire season for each team, which is what we intend to do. Temporarily, we at WikiProject Cricket feel this is the best solution until the "final" update is written some time in October. Sam Vimes 29 June 2005 22:13 (UTC)
      • given the prevalence of sports pages in newspapers — Exactly the point. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Wikinews is the newspaper (and takes all of the match reports you can give). Wikipedia is the encyclopaedia. — okay, let's have a look — News reports. Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories (however, our sister project Wikinews does exactly that). Wikipedia does have many encyclopedia articles on topics of historical significance that are currently in the news, and can be significantly more up-to-date than most reference sources since we can incorporate new developments and facts as they are made known. See current events for examples. To my eye the exclusion refers to breaking news, rather than newsworthy events, a distinction which I think applies here, and makes the issue one of notability and context. These articles should be looked at in the proper context of their transclusion, and then the issue of notability should be applied. I would argue that an article on the County cricket season is notable, and since these articles are intended to be a part of that article, rather than standalone articles, I think they are notable and should be kept. I think perhaps this VfD should be set aside and the issue of the use of transclusion in this way should be put forward as a policy suggestion. This VfD seems to be something of a red herring, and not the debate we should be having. Hiding 30 June 2005 07:32 (UTC)
  • Merge, this is not wikinews. Radiant_>|< June 29, 2005 08:26 (UTC)
  • Keep; Hiding makes what I think is a very good point, that just because this doesn't conform to the previous norms doesn't stop it from being a good innovation. Personally I'd have no objection whatever to similar things being done in other sports; it's just that cricket did it first. That's being bold for you! Loganberry (Talk) 29 June 2005 16:01 (UTC)
  • Keep Wikipedia will become more and more detailed over time and attacking this sort of thing is a blow struck against the potential of the project. CalJW 29 June 2005 16:16 (UTC)
  • Keep. For the reasons given by Hiding Monkey Tennis 29 June 2005 16:28 (UTC)
  • Delete. Apparently first-hand reports ("Harvey found boundaries seemingly at will") of individual sporting fixtures, complete with post-match interviews ("Worcestershire director of cricket Tom Moody said of Solanki: [...]") are primary source material, and a violation of our Wikipedia:no original research policy. If you want to write up individual cricket matches, write them up in Wikinews (There's a whole Cricket section there waiting to be filled with match reports.) and use interwiki links to link to the primary source material from Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a repository for primary source material. Uncle G June 29, 2005 21:17 (UTC)
    • The quotations you refer to were taken from Cricinfo, the BBC, or The Times. I wrote them myself - and whilst some spectators choose to chat to some of the cricketers, I tend to prefer to let them get on with the game. The quotations are not primary source, jguk 29 June 2005 21:50 (UTC)
    • The issue of original research is a red herring. As Wikipedia:No original research says, 'the phrase "original research" in this context refers to [...] data, statements, concepts and ideas that have not been published in a reputable publication' (emphasis mine). These match accounts refer to data that is widely available from other reputable sources. --Ngb 29 June 2005 23:39 (UTC)
  • Transwiki These *are* primary source, and exactly why we have Wikinews. They should be listed in the Sports section there, and I believe they may have a cricket section? (or need people to build/maintain one) - Amgine 29 June 2005 21:26 (UTC)
    • Personally, I think the primary source in question are the scorecards and news reports that we based the encyclopedia articles on. The interview in question comes from BBC, for example (we should probably have been better at referencing that one...) Sam Vimes 29 June 2005 21:40 (UTC)
      • A very very small number have some primary source material. It would be nice to think that WikiProject Cricket was large enough to have at least one member attend every first-class, list A and Twenty20 match. But alas, we're not that big yet. Most of the material I wrote is a mixture from Cricinfo, the BBC and The Times, with occasionally other sources coming in too - such as the county websites. You'd have to ask other contributors what their sources are, but as the major contributor is in Norway, my guess is that he isn't a primary source either (unless he has an awful lot of airmiles:) ). What we are doing here is writing something better than Wisden, produced much more quickly, and ultimately covering all Test nations, not just being English-based. An ambitious project, but one which will, in time, I trust, earn Wikipedia a lot, and I mean a lot, of kudos, jguk 29 June 2005 21:45 (UTC)
  • Delete. An individual sports event, with relatively rare exceptions, is by definition non-notable, as there are so many each year. Sounds like the whole lot should be moved to some non-wiki cricket Web site. carmeld1 29 June 2005 23:04 (UTC)
  • Merge or Keep. I reserve judgment on whether transcluded subpages would be OK, pending further investigation. David | Talk 30 June 2005 10:25 (UTC)
  • Merge or Delete. The individual articles are very short and quite meaningless out of context, for example Essex v Sussex 26 June 2005 does not as part of the article tell me what sport is being played or anything that might give me some clue as to what is going on. I have to go to the See Also for that. This must be a merge surely. Francis Davey 30 June 2005 11:23 (UTC)
    • The individual articles are very short and quite meaningless out of context: Please note that this is because they weren't ever written to make sense out of the context of the articles they're transcluded in to (in the case of the example you give, that is Essex County Cricket Club in 2005, Sussex County Cricket Club in 2005 and Twenty20 in England in 2005). Could you perhaps clarify below if you would be happy for your 'merge' vote to be accomplished by moving these pages back to being subpages of 2005 English cricket season? --Ngb 30 June 2005 11:50 (UTC)
    • I think probably yes, but I haven't a view yet on the role of subpages -- they were a new concept to me introduce by this article. Francis Davey 1 July 2005 12:44 (UTC)
  • Keep; articles on sporting events of this significance and above are worth keeping. James F. (talk) 1 July 2005 10:13 (UTC)
  • Strong transwiki. — Phil Welch 1 July 2005 00:34 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to Wikinews. These individual match reports are certainly not encyclopaedic, which is not to say they aren't of value. They just belong on the news site and not in the encyclopaedia. — Trilobite (Talk) 1 July 2005 09:30 (UTC)
    • To Trilobite and others voting 'transwiki': please note that these were never intended by the authors to stand as 'individual match reports': they are part of the process of developing a series of 'season reviews' (as I refer to above). These reviews *are* encyclopaedic, and they *do* belong in Wikipedia, not on Wikinews. --Ngb 1 July 2005 10:52 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to Wikinews. Whatever their reason for creation, the fact remains that these are OR news reports, and there's only one home in Wikimedia for stuff like that. There's nothing stopping you from writing a season review on Wikipedia from articles on Wikinews. Dan100 (Talk) July 3, 2005 00:45 (UTC)
    • It is a descriptive account of what happened in the game - similar to a descriptive account of what happened in any other historical event, or to a plot summary. The only other way to write an encyclopedia article on this subject would be to state the scorecard, which IMO is primary source and should go on wikisource or something. Sam Vimes 3 July 2005 09:11 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:No original research. You're allowed to do original reporting on Wikinews though. Dan100 (Talk) July 4, 2005 09:12 (UTC)
But they aren't original - certainly not first-hand, like the link on wikinews implies. The wording is original, obviously, or they'd be blatant copyvio, but the articles are based on news reports appearing on other webpages. Sam Vimes 4 July 2005 09:28 (UTC)

Merge issue

I have moved the ongoing back-and-forth between Ngb and Bryan to this vfd's talk page, in order to maintain the readability of this VfD. -- BD2412 talk June 30, 2005 16:19 (UTC)

Allow me to restate the question on Ngb's behalf: Would those who have voted 'merge' in this VfD please clarify whether they would be satisfied if this was accomplished via transclusion of subpages? -- BD2412 talk June 30, 2005 00:37 (UTC)

  • We've always said that the transclusion is a temporary measure until the season is over, when there will be an opportunity to fully copyedit and amend the articles in the light of how the season ended up. At that point (probably at the end of October), the articles will be "subst"'d into the main articles. Transclusion is a necessary tool whilst the articles are being constructed, otherwise it would just take prohibitively long to create them. Kind regards, jguk 30 June 2005 05:40 (UTC)
    • Incidentally, an example of this kind of work being done 'the other way' is at User:Ngb/English cricket team in the 2000s. As you can see, it's taking forever. --Ngb 30 June 2005 10:37 (UTC)
    • I just said above that I think this VfD is a bit of a red herring distracting us from the real issue, and that this VfD should be set aside for the moment and the matter of the usage of transclusion in the way it was being used to present these articles put forward as a policy suggestion, if it is currently frowned upon, since that seems to be the issue worthy of greater discussion. Hiding 30 June 2005 07:45 (UTC)

I have also just noted that, according to the previous discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Unusual transclusion issue not covered by policy, there is no policy against this transclusion. Therefore, this matter should be decided before this VfD is continued with. Hiding 30 June 2005 07:58 (UTC)

I would definitely support continuing discussion on the transclusion issue to some sort of conclusion. It doesn't look like this VfD is going to result in a "delete", though, so I don't think it's going to interfere one way or the other with that discussion. Bryan 30 June 2005 16:00 (UTC)
Oh, I should also mention that there's a thread on this topic at Wikipedia talk:Template namespace#transcluding prose as well. Bryan 30 June 2005 16:06 (UTC)
  • There is a policy against this, actually. You're not supposed to use templates to masquerade as article content. That these templates reside in mainspace rather than template space is irrelevant. Also, transclusion is increasing server load, increasing page redundancy, and making it harder for newbies to edit. Bad thing. Radiant_>|< July 1, 2005 10:18 (UTC)
    • Could you link to where this policy is? I did a bit of hunting around through template-related policy pages before going to the village pump and couldn't find anything specifically about this, I will be embarassed if it slipped under my nose all this time. :) Bryan 3 July 2005 10:04 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to Wikinews. Match reports aren't encyclopaedic. Accounts of matches are news, not encyclopaedic content. Short summaries could easily be merged also. That said, Formula One has an article for every race. Hedley 4 July 2005 21:59 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to Wikinews. Situations like this are the reason Wikinews was invented. See Uncle G's note here. --Ardonik.talk()* July 7, 2005 17:13 (UTC)
    • Are you saying that articles like this one should be transwikied to Wikinews? If not, what's different about these? --Ngb 7 July 2005 17:47 (UTC)
      • No, since an article like that combines a large number of events from the past. But for current events and all future cricket match reports, I think Wikinews is the best place (it would be nice if all the cricket reports on Wikinews were combined into a format like that.)
        What's more, I don't think that subpage's content is encyclopedic, but since it isn't in the main namespace, it isn't harming anyone. --Ardonik.talk()* July 7, 2005 17:56 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nottinghamshire_v_Yorkshire_26_June_2005&oldid=1081002461"