Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Wales

Simon Johnston

Simon Johnston (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This BLP article is a single sentence long, with only two sources, both from the North Wales Post. I could not find any reliable sources for the article subject other than the links listed. Clearly a case of a non-notable subject improperly given its own article. I'd be open to a merge, but I don't think there's anything worth merging here. Mit khavershaft, Royz-vi Tsibele🧅 11:20, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Sport of athletics, United Kingdom, and Wales. Mit khavershaft, Royz-vi Tsibele🧅 11:20, 12 August 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to Strength athletics in the United Kingdom and Ireland#Wales' Strongest Man – Where he is listed. Svartner (talk) 13:19, 12 August 2026 (UTC)
• Keep Passes GNG. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 17:41, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

  @WikiOriginal-9 All but one of these links comes from the same source, that being North Wales Live, a local-news operation associated with the Daily Mirror. The only other link is a mere six short sentences long and doesn't appear to establish notability. Mit khavershaft, Royz-vi Tsibele🧅 00:33, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Prince Charles investiture bombing

Prince Charles investiture bombing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Article is attempting to treat at least three separate bombing incidents as one incident and is riddled with content ranging from inaccurate to entirely fabricated. All of the details are already covered in far better detail on the Mudiad Amddiffyn Cymru article. Based on this fact, it's also impossible to derive where the time listed in the infobox has been derived, especially considering that isn't a single incident.

The article primarily references the Abergele bombing, which occurred on 30 June 1969, and states it occurred a day later than it did. It also classifies this as a "suicide bombing" and "mass murder", which is inaccurate to the point of absurdity. No individuals were targeted by the attack, and the only deaths that occurred were the two bombers which happened on accident. This is covered in detail with relevant sourcing on the MAC article. It also states as fact that the Royal Train was the target - this is strongly disputed and was not the conclusion reached by the inquest, the architect of the campaign or the Home Office. This is also covered on the MAC article.

The injury of the young boy, Ian Cox, happened a week later on 5 July. The article falsely says it occurred on the same day as Abergele, which it claims was 1 July - again, wrong. Covered on the MAC article. It further claims that Ian Cox's eye 'fell out of its socket'. This is just grossly offensive and wrong, and the citation used for this states this nowhere. The editor has fabricated it. Nowhere in any source or in any of the literature is this mentioned. There are also photographs of Ian Cox following the incident with his face unscathed, seen here: https://www.dailymail.com/home/event/article-7162353/Charles-Investiture.html

The general writing of the article is just poor as well, and makes a number of statements, such as claiming that all Welsh nationalists regard the Abergele bombers as martyrs.

It would be far better to flesh out the MAC article's investiture section and then potentially lift some of that into separate articles, but this article is just grossly inappropriate and confused and should not have been approved to begin with. AderynMelyn (talk) 13:53, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Terrorism and Wales. AderynMelyn (talk) 13:53, 28 July 2026 (UTC)
• Comment, likely it is supposed to focus on the Abergele events, better retitled 1969 Abergele bombing and re-written to include other theorised targets. The terms "suicide bombing" and "mass murder" do seem quite outlandish for this. Although the attempted bombing itself is probably notable on its own. There's quite a lot at Mudiad Amddiffyn Cymru already that can be used to replace the content here? While WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP, if purely based on the state of this article which isn't perfect, better draftify for now and the errors and controversial claims removed. Concerning "martyrs" it specifies "fellow" not necessarily "all" but other wording can be preferable, though they were dubbed the "Abergele Martyrs". Note it has not yet been reviewed, so it hasn't been approved by page reviewers. DankJae 17:17, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

  @DankJae I agree with this, and understand, having read WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP, the sentiment. Concerning the "Abergele Martyrs" aspect, I mean it should say "some Welsh nationalists", which is a distinction I've made on Mudiad Amddiffyn Cymru and on other articles, as it could be perceived as contentious without that clarification. But that forms part of a broader concern I have in regards to @Welshlamping, who has made a number of edits, including of course with this article, which breach WP:SYNTH and WP:NPOV. The claims made here regarding the targeting of the train, and especially Ian Cox's injuries, range from highly contentious to made up. In the case of the train, Welshlamping's contradicts their own prose and then utilises sources contradicting the claim. In regards to Ian Cox, they cite https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/welsh-plot-kill-prince-charles-16469770 as evidence of his eye falling out, yet this isn't stated anywhere in the citation. In all of the sources I have read on the subject, nowhere states this either. I was alerted to this in the first place because Welshlamping had made numerous unsourced edits breaking WP:SYNTH on other articles, like on Free Wales Army. AderynMelyn (talk) 20:46, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

• Delete After reading through what SenshiSun I've come to realize this was a mistaken accept on my part. Keep Nom has not made any effort to place main tags or do any cleanup. Having different opinions on factual accuracy is not a reason to delete an article, not even close. Nom has been invited to provide sources to the claims they are making, but so far has only provided a wholly unreliable DailyMail source.Sulfurboy (talk) 21:02, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

  The article is fundamentally a mess; it's trying to address separate bombing incidents, as I have stated on numerous occasions now. "Cleaning" it would involve totally redoing the article from scratch. It simply should not have been approved to begin with, and it was previously rejected. I have read practically every book on this subject, be it To Dream of Freedom by Roy Clews, Freedom Fighters by John Humphries, or Hands off Wales by Wyn Thomas, among others. Do you want individual page numbers? Because they are already listed on this subject in the MAC article, which I am still adding to.

  I am well aware that the Daily Mail is an unreliable rag, but those photos are not fabricated, and you're being ridiculously pedantic here. The claim regarding Ian Cox's eye DOES NOT EXIST in the citation that Welshlamping used. They have made it up, and the Daily Mail article simply includes actual photographs of Cox following the incident. In fact, if you're so insistent, here's a clip posted from BBC Wales showing footage of Ian Cox in hospital after the incident - it's the same photo, and his face is unscathed: https://www.facebook.com/BBCCymruWales/videos/the-prince-and-the-bomber-explores-the-tumultuous-period-leading-up-to-the-inves/328745994731010/ AderynMelyn (talk) 21:23, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

• Keep: The nominator previously berated @Sulfurboy a few days ago. This AfD is entirely based on WP:IDLI and WP:SURMOUNTABLE issues, neither of which are grounds for deletion. AfD is not cleanup, which I believe the nominator needs to understand. The article topic is clearly notable and should be kept for that reason. (As an extra note, Daily Mail is deprecated by consensus, which is a step below even unreliability.) 11WB 💬 13:29, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

  @Sulfurboy initiated the exchange by describing my initial request for deletion as "silly", so it's disingenuous to then say I'm berating him by saying he was being silly. What I'm reading from this is that I'm going to have no choice but to take the time to clean up this mess of an article. The author has, again, wholly fabricated evidence that contradicts the citations they've used. They've also been uploading numerous historical photos to Wikipedia, be it images of Nicholas II or Julian Cayo-Evans' children, and claiming it as their "own work", totally violating copyright policies.

  Also, as I've already stated, I'm aware of the Daily Mail's status. I have not used the Daily Mail as a source on Mudiad Amddiffyn Cymru, I simply used it here as it's one of the few sources that published archived photos of Ian Cox after his injuries (which I've since provided a BBC source for as well). AderynMelyn (talk) 19:00, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

  I never called you silly. I said PROD'ing an article that just got out of AfC is silly, which it was. PROD should only be utilized in cases where deletion would be uncontroversial. That clearly wasn't the case here as an uninvolved editor (myself) just approved it out of AfC. You're welcome to make edits on the page as you see fit as long as they are supported with reliable sources and can do so without a WP:COI with the subject. However, considering your very passionate statements and responses in all of this, it's hard to imagine you could successfully edit this page without COI or NPOV issues. Sulfurboy (talk) 19:06, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

  And I described the decision to approve the article as silly, so the point is moot. Frankly, your assertion regarding COI and NPOV is absurd. It is just incredibly frustrating that you are consistently refusing to engage with the points or evidence I have cited (unless of course it's the Daily Mail example), and seem utterly unbothered by the conduct of the editor that drafted the article to begin with. AderynMelyn (talk) 19:44, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

  @AderynMelyn, this AfD comes across as trying to make a WP:POINT. If you dislike how an article is written, you can edit the article yourself. You definitely shouldn't use the article talk page to have a go at another editor, and then open an AfD simply to double down. Evidently, it has backfired. You have the WP:CHOICE to improve articles. It is a waste of time to open an AfD for no reason other than to carry on. At some point you have to drop the stick and move on. 11WB 💬 20:40, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

  @11WB See my response to @DankJae, I'll drop my request for deletion having read WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. Regardless, the article needs renaming and rewriting, either as an individual Abergele bombing or Investiture of Charles bombings article. What I will maintain though is that there needs to be watch of the edits made by @Welshlamping, because they have absolutely breached WP:SYNTH to absurd degrees here, and I became aware of this because of them doing it elsewhere to begin with. AderynMelyn (talk) 20:50, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

  That's fine. This will be frustrating for you, but SYNTH is a valid deletion rationale, that often results in article deletion at AfD. Unfortunately, your nomination statement completely failed to cite that policy. With two days to go, I'm unsure now whether there will be enough time to make the case that this article violates that policy. I would need to do more research to form a conclusion on that. Short of a relist, I don't think there is enough time left in this AfD to form a consensus. 11WB 💬 20:54, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:48, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

The Mudiad Amddiffyn Cymru article is more organized than this. It only has a sentence for each incident. A plot to kill the prince would be notable, especially if some people consider the perpetrators to be martyrs. However, the article in its current state is very hard to follow. If these events are connected, it's unclear how.

As others have noted, the claim about the 10 year old's eye is not supported by the Wales Online text, which reads: "The serious injuries caused to 10-year-old Ian Cox when he trod on an explosive device four days after the Investiture and was badly injured showed – despite Jenkins’ assertion that he was 'truly sorry' – the consequences of going beyond constitutional means in pursuit of a political goal."

The phrase "Prince Charles investiture bombing" seems to be made up by the article creator. No sources use this exact phrase. For that reason, draftify and reorganize content. SenshiSun (talk) 23:18, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

@SenshiSun, this statement has similar issues to the nomination statement. What PAG is being cited here? If it's WP:SYNTH, that needs to be made clear. Your explanation would suggest as such, and is helpful, but without the exact policy violation there's no PAG case for such an outcome. 11WB 💬 23:41, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

It's Wikipedia:TSI: Claims in the article are not supported by their sources. SenshiSun (talk) 23:57, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. That's a WP:V failure in that case. Suitable rationale for deletion. 11WB 💬 01:20, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Another photo from the same event in the Daily Mail article states Ian Cox lost one leg and fractured the other. This is in a Top Foto caption.

I would not be comfortable using that as a source but if we trace that photo to its origin we should find something useful. SenshiSun (talk) 23:50, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

• Delete: Based on the evidence presented by the nominator and @SenshiSun, I believe there are grounds for deletion under potential WP:SYNTH and WP:V violations, in addition to WP:OVERLAP with Mudiad Amddiffyn Cymru, where the topic is already covered. The current content does not warrant a standalone article, and uses only local sources that cover a period of time that includes the plot. The article title, as @SenshiSun explained above, is another concern and may not actually be accurate. WP:ATD-R might be viable here under a different name. 11WB 💬 01:30, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

  Comment: North Wales Live has used the phrase Prince Charles investiture bomb. SenshiSun (talk) 02:42, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

• Draftify but rename to something like 1969 Abergele bombing as suggested above. The editor that accepted the article from AfC agrees they may have done this too soon. However, there is plenty of scope for a standalone article - the section in Mudiad Amddiffyn Cymru is already far longer. Sionk (talk) 10:00, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:17, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

• Delete as hopeless WP:SYNTH. A new article on the 1969 Abergele bombing can be started in draft from scratch. Oppose draftifying as we shouldn't preserve WP:OR.4meter4 (talk) 14:53, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Others