Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coat of arms of Calderdale

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 merge to Calderdale. SpinningSpark 21:00, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coat of arms of Calderdale

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Total lack of notability. Fram (talk) 08:15, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 08:15, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:46, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I really don't see why this one is non-notable, when all these exist (as well as many, many more from all over the world). It serves no purpose to delete piecemeal. It needs a wider discussion as to whether such articles are notable or not. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:25, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- No reason why they would all have the same notability or lack thereof. In those cats you gave I see Symbols of Manchester, or something like Coat of arms of Sunderland which has a lot more history (may be notable or not, but not something to drop into the same discussion as this one). Fram (talk) 15:41, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep pending a wider discussion about whether coats of arms for local authorities should have standalone articles, and how to incorporate them into the main article if they are not individually notable. I'm very surprised that someone as experienced as Fram thought that an AfD of a random member of a set of things was the right way to go, especially as the only remotely plausible outcomes are keep or merge. Thryduulf (talk) 11:28, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- On the contrary, I am amazed that you think this is how things are done here. There is no reason that all or no local authorities should have stand-alone articles on their coat of arms, that depends solely and purely on the notability of those coats of arms itself, as it does for nearly all other topics. The suggestion that some discussion (leadng to a SNG I suppose) must be had before an article from a certain topic can be nominated for deletion is absurd. Do you have any actual, policy based reason to keep this article, or can your comment be ignored as weightless opinion by whoever closes this? Fram (talk) 11:43, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  If you read what I actually wrote, you will see that I don't believe what you say I do. I think it should be discussed whether all, none or some local authorities should have standalone articles, what sources are useful for determining this, and if the answer is "some" or "none" then how best to merge the information into the target article - and indeed whether the best option is to merge to the local authority and/or to a list article. It is a waste of everybody's time to discus this individually several hundred times. The information about coats of arms is clearly sourced and significant in the context of both coats of arms (a notable topic) and the local authority (a notable topic) so it's clearly inappropriate to delete the information completely. When the only plausible outcomes are "keep" or "merge" then AfD is the wrong venue, and someone of your experience knows that. Thryduulf (talk) 13:05, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - First, can you stop with the personalizing comments (here and edit summaries). I read what you wrote, I disagree. The information about the coat of arms of Calderdale is not "significant in the context of both coats of arms (a notable topic)", it is just "a" coat of arms, and is not a significant entry or addition to the topic of "coat of arms". Is it significant for the local authority? Doubtful, not every aspect of a town, district, ... is a notable aspect and not every coat of arms is notable or significant for its locality. It may be that it is significant for this one, and in that case a merge may happen, but the certainty you display here doesn't seem warranted in such a way in any case. Contrary to what you claim, a "keep" based on actual policy merits is highly unlikely here, the result will be delete, redirect, or merge. But your comments so far have done nothing to get any closer to a solution, they only help to get the discussion longer and less constructive. As an oversighter and admin should surely know (see, two can play that game, doesn't help in any way though). Fram (talk) 13:56, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I choose not to engage further as it's not clear to me that doing so will lead to comments relevant to the content being discussed here. Thryduulf (talk) 19:01, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Side comment. Looking at similar articles related to the North of England, this seems as notable as "Coat of arms of Lancaster University", established in 1964. By contrast, "Coat of arms of Middlesex" is a redirect for a section of Middlesex; and "Coat of arms of Northumberland" (and other counties) is a redirect for the article Armorial of county councils of England and its illustrated table. Mathsci (talk) 09:50, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Can't it just be merged with Calderdale if NN? Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:32, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 04:39, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Calderdale: the article fails to indicate that this particular coat of arms is notable as a standalone topic. It just describes the coat of arms itself, without any social or historical context besides the "symbolism" section. The council's website does have a detailed description of the arms and its symbolism (although it contradicts the date given in our article), but that's the only substantial source I can find besides image galleries and whatnot. So it doesn't appear that this topic has received enough significant coverage to warrant a separate article. It would be fine as a section of the article for Calderdale, though. 3 kids in a trenchcoat (talk) 20:46, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Calderdale. Absolutely no indication this is a notable stand-alone topic. Without more sourcing it may well get removed from that article eventually. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 23:20, 3 December 2021 (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.