Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Advanced Driving UK
- 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 delete, after considering arguments presented, not !vote numbers. Petros471 13:30, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Probably well-intentioned, because some thought has gone in to categories and "see also" links, but this appears to be an advert for a website and may not be sufficiently notable. – Kieran T (talk | contribs) 12:23, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Advanced Driving UK is a recongised road safety organisation in the UK and referenced in many places on the internet as the definitive resource for advanced driving information. The article will be expanded by ADUK members to bring together the knowledge on Advanced Driving gained from the site. Should the article be deleted there would also be such consideration of the deletion of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_of_Advanced_Motorists which is a blatent advert. Gerovitus 14:28, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Slashdot has its own wikipedia page! How is ADUK much different? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slashdot —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.30.198.101 (talk • contribs) 14:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC).[reply]
- I've struck out the comment about categories and links because I notice that it's lifted from another article (Institute of Advanced Motorists) – not saying that's a bad thing; merely that it loses the strength I'd assigned it in my first sentence. – Kieran T (talk | contribs) 22:11, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Please quote which part was lifted. You'll probably find the external links where modified on the IAM article in accordance with similar resources after the ADUK article was created. Gerovitus 22:17, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Gerovitus, please note that (as I said) I'm not suggesting anything bad has happened, merely choosing to retract a bit of my comment. But also: sorry! Because I see that you're absolutely correct, and I got it backwards about the fact that the "see also" (though not the categories) was new to the IAM article on September 5th. However, I stand by my point that however excellent the Advanced Driving UK website may be, (and I don't want to knock it as a site), it may not be notable enough for WP. The bottom line though is that the Institute of Advanced Motorists is different because it's a long-established registred Charity which does things in the physical world and is recognised by many insurance companies, which makes it notable. A website ought to be pretty special to be notable on Wikipedia. As has been noted below, Slashdot meets that criteria by having a very large number of users indeed. – Kieran T (talk | contribs) 22:32, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- ADUK has links with one of the largest insurance broker's in the UK. The IAM qualification is only officially recognised by AON (IAM Select). The IAM's charity documents clearly show the IAM's commercial goals, they're article is an advert. Gerovitus 22:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It would help the article's case then, to include those links with the insurance broker. And also, if you think the IAM article is an advert, that's not a defence of your article, it's a reason to change the IAM one, or nominate it for deletion also, surely? – Kieran T (talk | contribs) 22:55, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair comment Kieran. Gerovitus 23:09, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It would help the article's case then, to include those links with the insurance broker. And also, if you think the IAM article is an advert, that's not a defence of your article, it's a reason to change the IAM one, or nominate it for deletion also, surely? – Kieran T (talk | contribs) 22:55, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- ADUK has links with one of the largest insurance broker's in the UK. The IAM qualification is only officially recognised by AON (IAM Select). The IAM's charity documents clearly show the IAM's commercial goals, they're article is an advert. Gerovitus 22:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Gerovitus, please note that (as I said) I'm not suggesting anything bad has happened, merely choosing to retract a bit of my comment. But also: sorry! Because I see that you're absolutely correct, and I got it backwards about the fact that the "see also" (though not the categories) was new to the IAM article on September 5th. However, I stand by my point that however excellent the Advanced Driving UK website may be, (and I don't want to knock it as a site), it may not be notable enough for WP. The bottom line though is that the Institute of Advanced Motorists is different because it's a long-established registred Charity which does things in the physical world and is recognised by many insurance companies, which makes it notable. A website ought to be pretty special to be notable on Wikipedia. As has been noted below, Slashdot meets that criteria by having a very large number of users indeed. – Kieran T (talk | contribs) 22:32, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Please quote which part was lifted. You'll probably find the external links where modified on the IAM article in accordance with similar resources after the ADUK article was created. Gerovitus 22:17, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I've struck out the comment about categories and links because I notice that it's lifted from another article (Institute of Advanced Motorists) – not saying that's a bad thing; merely that it loses the strength I'd assigned it in my first sentence. – Kieran T (talk | contribs) 22:11, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Doesn't seem notable. (Comment on above comment: Slashdot is ranked in the top 40 most popular web sites on the Internet. Is this one?) JulesH 18:31, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Highly notable. Dave 19:34, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Comment on above comment: Ranked No.4 in Google and No. 1 in MSN for Advanced Driving above other Advanced Driving and Road Safety organisations http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=advanced+driving this makes it notable and an authoritive resource on the topic Gerovitus 21:54, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The AD-UK entry should remain, IMO. It's a very valuable resource for thos wishing to improve their driving and is well-subscribed by some very highly qualified road drivers who assist them in doing so. Given that there are entries in Wikipedia for such organisations as Sustrans and Transport 2000, there's no reason not to allow AD-UK to remain as an entry. They have ostensibly similar objectives although AD-UK is probably more practically oriented for drivers who wish to make a positive contribution to road safety in the here and now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.93.21.134 (talk • contribs) 19:38, 9 September 2006
- AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mangojuicetalk 13:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Having read and taken on board the comments in defence of the article, I've tried giving it a bit of a cleanup, and crucially given it an opening sentence which defines what kind of a thing is being talked about – previously the article dived straight into prose, not in very clear Wikipedia style, and one was left unsure of the nature of the entity. It remains unstated whether it's a company, charity or unincorporated body. I've also toned down the number of times the name of the website is mentioned (with capital letters) which hopefully go towards making it all a bit more readable. The main problem with the article now is the number of unreferenced statistics and statements (i.e. "you can help" ;-) – Kieran T (talk | contribs) 14:21, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete not notable or encyclopedic. --Peta 04:18, 27 September 2006 (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.