Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scotlandshire

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 of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. JIP | Talk 11:14, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scotlandshire

Article on a made-up term with no sources of evidence that the term is used, let alone worthy of an encyclopaedia article. All google hits seem to be 'silly use', and not that described in the article. Stringops 03:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, WP:NFT. Royboycrashfan 03:08, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I can assure you, the term is used. The introduction to this RfD is nonsense. I created this article on request. It is the title of a reasonably famous song, and you can see, google produces nearly 1000 hits. The term even appear on the lighly indexed google book search. [1] - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 03:57, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - Englandshire also appears on such a book search with more results. Should we have an article on it simply because it's a jovial neologism too? Stringops 15:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't know what Englandshire means, so I can't do any article on that. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 18:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. Pejorative, sometimes affectionate, term for "Scotland". -AED 08:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Certainly in use - here are a couple of examples from the Letters Page of The Scotsman: [[2]] (needs free registration to actually read the relevant letters). I note that it also frequently pops up on forums, blogs, song lyrics and the like, so it is certainly a word of the populace at large. What I am fascinated to know is how, and why, it is being used in academic circles. --Mais oui! 08:34, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete This is nonsense there is no such term 82.36.107.54 08:56, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - there certainly is such a term. An Siarach
  • Comment - Wikipedia is not a repositaary for every obscure term ever created and used very occasionally. I can't see how this term is notable. Stringops 15:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, such matters are subjective. It was clearly notable enough for you to list it for deletion. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 18:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Just out of curiosity, does the term bother you for some reason? - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 18:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
      • This term doesn't 'bother' me; I simply don't think it's notable enough to merit a seperate article. As well as this, there's not much than can be said about it that can be made into anything other than a glorified dictionary definition. If it isn't deleted, the article will remain a stub. Stringops 03:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
        • That sounds like a challenge to me! This is one of the great things about Afd - sometimes articles that survive the process go on to become really valuable additions to the project. From all I have read I think that there is a good amount of source material, and Calgacus says that he has some good material in his own library, which unfortunately he does not have access to at present. --Mais oui! 10:11, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
          • If you and Calgacus think you can make it into a worthwhile article, please go ahead. If you do, I'm happy to eat my words. But I can't really see how a single term and its (perhaps widespread but abscure) usage can ever escape being a glorified dicdef, however many quotations/references you may be able to add. Stringops 15:45, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - 8 references found, dating back to 1992, in NewsBank newspaper archive (Times, Daily Record, Glasgow Herald). Example: "Even so we cannot be abolished, and Ramsay, among many others, helps prove it. The last opportunity to abolish Scotland or at least turn it into Scotlandshire, England came in his lifetime" - Portrait of the nation by a couthy son - Allan Ramsay, Sunday Times, The (London, England), August 9, 1992. Tearlach 10:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - so that's 8 references in 14 years. Should wikipedia have articles on every made-up term used at least once by a local newspaper? It's not even a coherent topic - it's just a rare neologism. The OED doesn't even list it. Stringops 15:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, the OED, ignoring its thousands of inaccurate etymological explanations, is not supposed to be as comprehensive as Wikipedia. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 18:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Important article which links in with Scottish history. Simply because it can be used tongue in cheek is no reason to delete. If WP can have articles on obscure anime characters that nobody has heard of then it should most definitely have articles on things like this. SFC9394 12:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - if the term has any genuine and notable relevance to Scottish history, then it should be merged with the History of Scotland article. As it stands, I can't see how a usefully-sized article can be created from it. Stringops 15:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • That's the strangest argument I've ever heard. Should Scottish king then be merged with History of Scotland. On this logic, there would be no Scotland-related articles except History of Scotland. And as History of England "has ... genuine and notable relevance to Scottish history", should it be "merged" with History of Scotland? - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 18:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Wikipedia WP:ISNOT a dictionary. Yes the term is used, yes I use it myself however Wikipedia is not a dictionary and we should not be taking part in original research to build up articles - where are the sources, and "Scotlandshire is a term sometimes used": by who? Where? When? thanks/wangi 12:57, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - common phrase with history to be expounded beyond a dicdef. Vizjim 12:58, 3 April 2006 (UTC) Redirect to a new short section at Shire sounds a workable option. Vizjim 14:50, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, but at least find a couple of respectable quotations to illustrate the term in use (The Sunday Times one would do for a start) otherwise it could only be a dictionary entry. Ming the Merciless 13:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC) Redirect to a new short section at Shire sounds a workable option. Ming the Merciless 12:55, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - should wikipedia have articles on every word in the Oxford English Dictionary, if ' a couple of respectable quoations to illustrate them' are provided in each case? This is not a dictionary for neologisms. Stringops 15:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep (with rewrite) As noted, it's met all standards as not being a neologism. If the page is poorly written such as a dicdef, then it needs to be rewritten, but this would definately be useful as an encyclopedia article. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 15:13, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - what are the standards for not being a neologism? It doesn't appear in the latest edition of the OED, it gets fewer than 900 google hits (Englandshire gets 13,200 - so should that be included too? Franceshire gets 7,590, clearly a far more popular non-word; Spainshire gets 3,630!). If merely having a few jovial usages is grounds for inclusion, should we have articles on all of these 'notable terms'? Stringops 15:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
    • The standards for not being a neologism are inclusion in at least a couple news articles back in 1992. How can it be a neologism when written 14 years ago? The usage of it has been shown to not be entirely jovial. Can you show me otherwise for Franceshire, Spainshire, etc? ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 15:48, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Very interesting. This is clearly part of a global, or at least European , phenomenon. Perhaps the whole issue of "shire-ification" deserves some Wikipedia coverage. --Mais oui! 15:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Non notable neologism. Maybe add a paragraph in Shire to discuss the usage in things like Chiantishire, but Scotlandshire seems too obscure to rate even a mention there. Regards, Ben Aveling 16:25, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • The google book search, lightly indexed as it is, shows the term in use in the 1940s. Now, I have no prejudices against neologisms, but even if I did, this one blatantly would not meet any neologism criteria. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 18:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Shire and mention the term there along with other joking uses of -shire (much as Ben suggests). ProhibitOnions 12:25, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • There's no problem with it having its own article. Wikipedia has articles on thousands of subject of little note to anybody, which go for years without content edits; this article, in contrast, is apparently of more note. Dumping it in shire could mean that it could be deleted, and if it were deleted, any vote supporting a redirect would be null and void, and the article could be reverted to its original content. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 18:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
    • There's nothing to stop you or anyone else expanding Shire so as to incorporate the relevant content of this article. Stringops 03:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This term is not notable enough to have an entry here. U$er
• Delete please. Wikipedia is not a dictionary of amusing terms. NTK 05:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

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.