Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Queen's Award for Enterprise (mass nomination)

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 all placeholder/empty articles (both as a result of the AfD and per speedy criterion G7, as the author/sole major editor of these articles said below he does not object to the placeholder deletion). No consensus on what to do with the non-empty articles, so default to keeping on those. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:41, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Queen's Award for Enterprise (mass nomination)

Here is a bunch of placeholder article created in September 2010 by Rich Farmbrough (talk · contribs) prior to his editing restriction on the mass-creation of articles. They have zero content, and would in theory look like The Queen's Award for Enterprise: Innovation (Technology) (2010) upon expansion:

Sustainable Development (Environmental Achievement)

Innovation (Technology)

International Trade (Export)

Other lists exist, but they have some content (e.g. The Queen's Award for Enterprise: Innovation (Technology) (1979)) or are actual lists (The Queen's Award for Enterprise: Innovation (Technology) (2010)), or were already deleted (e.g. The Queen's Award for Enterprise: International Trade (Export) (1996)). I'll make nominations for the others separately to free up these clear-cut cases. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:03, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Badly named, empty articles. I prodded these in a distant past (January 2011), but the creator deprodded them, but didn't fill them. Apart from being empty (most of them) for quite a while now, they are also very badly named, considering that the awards were actually named "The Queens Award for Export Achievement" and "The Queens Award for Technological Achievement" (from 1976 on), with from 1993 on a third one, "The Queens Award for Environmental Achievement" Some changes to the naming and grouping were again made in 2000-Z001. Details can be found at this PDF link. The double disambiguation used in these articles is an eyesore... Fram (talk) 20:07, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per fram. Nanostubs with no sourcing and next to no content. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:22, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all These are important awards and the previous article was a hotch-potch list of winners. Most of the completed lists were deleted at a previous AfD shortly to be at DRV. If no other bugger is going to fill them in I will do it myself, as I have, with a little help, for the items with ticks in the below list.

Year	International Trade (Export)	Innovation (Technology)	Export and Technology (Combined)	Sustainable Development (Environmental Achievement)	Total awards
2010	95 Y	38 Y		10 Y	143
2009	135 Y	49 Y		10 Y	194
2008	85 Y	42 Y		12 Y	139
2007	71 Y	40 Y		8 Y	119
2006	90 Y	48 Y		7 Y	145
2005	88 Y	41 Y		8 Y	137
2004	66	39		7	112
2003	62 Y	51 Y		10 Y	123
2002	85 Y	37 Y		9 Y	131
2001	76 Y	42 Y		15 Y	133
2000	77	32		7	116
1999	82	14		5	101
1998	115	14		4	133
1997	110	16		8	134
1996	107	16		6	129
1995	140	17		6	163
1994	139	18		8	165
1993	118	25		12	155
1992	127	38			165
1991	118	40			158
1990	126	49			175
1989	116	40			156
1988	102	43 Y			145
1987	120	34			154
1986	114	27			141
1985	90	29			119
1984	88	23			111
1983	90	20			110
1982	91	19			110
1981	92	17			109
1980	87 Y	17 Y			104
1979	102	19			121
1978	107	17			124
1977	106	19			125
1976	95	20			115
1975	76Y	17Y	2Y		95
1974	59	19	- Y		78
1973	66	15	2		83
1972	72 Y	17	1 Y		90
1971	93	13	4		110
1970	74	25	5		104
1969	69Y	24Y	6Y		99
1968	60Y	17Y	8Y		85
1967	48Y	28Y	9Y		85
1966	86	11	18 Y		115
TOTAL	4,215	1,236	55	152	5,658

Rich Farmbrough, 23:18, 30 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Delete all the placeholders; they don't qualify for A3 speedy deletion, but they're functionally no better than articles that do qualify for it. Placeholders with no unique information are meaningless as articles. I'm really not fond of the 2010 article, but it's a completely different situation, and any articles like it should not be deleted here because they're far from being placeholders. Nyttend (talk) 23:58, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the empty/placeholder articles, allowing re-creation later. It's a well-known award, but an empty article is of no use to anybody. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:15, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete placeholders, Keep substantive articles, and allow re-creation of deleted ones if they have substance, per User:Colapeninsula above. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 17:31, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have no massive objection to the place-holders being deleted until needed. My only concern is that if they are created piece-meal they will be a jumble of different styles. Rich Farmbrough, 05:15, 2 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Then keep an eye on them and BOLDly style-edit them, working with those who create them. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 13:01, 2 May 2012 (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.