Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lent Bumps 2023

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.

Lent Bumps 2023 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination

)

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

No evidence found of

• Note: This discussion has been included in the
  Fram (talk) 14:55, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete as it does not meet
  WP:GNG, unless a suitable redirect target can be found.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:25, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio ^giuliano 15:05, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to
  WP:ATD. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:09, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• keep - either delete the lot, or none. Deleting just one year makes no sense William M. Connolley (talk) 17:10, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Some of them might be notable, but this one isn't. And if you bundle too many together, it will always end up as a procedural keep per
  WP:OSE isn't a valid keep reason. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:34, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment. It is quite weird to have Category:Lent Bumps results with all these detailed stats. Maybe we should consider merging it with some kinda summarizing. Suitskvarts (talk) 20:38, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No indication that it meets
  WP:GNG. Perhaps the other years are not notable either, but that's not the issue here. Nigej (talk) 11:10, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:52, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Nigej and one15969. I suspect many other examples of this aren't notable either, but we can deal with those in due time. RobinCarmody (talk) 14:19, 2 April 2023 (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.