Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Troubles in Moneymore

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 keep. Mangojuice^talk 16:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Troubles in Moneymore

This articles only contents are a list of incidents in Moneymore which resulted in two or more fatalities, in that list there is only one item (with two fatalities). The article on Moneymore has a section on the troubles which is just a link to this page and a description of what is on it "For more information see The Troubles in Moneymore, which includes a list of incidents in Moneymore during the Troubles resulting in two or more fatalities." I see no reason to keep this article, the little information can be easily merged into the Moneymore article. A look at the reference shows there were several incidents in or near Moneymore where one person was killed, so there is scope to expand this article. I think deleting and a couple of sentences on the Moneymore article is the best course of action. Sam Hayes 22:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• As nominator, Merge and delete. Keep Sam Hayes 22:53, 20 October 2006 (UTC)(Vote changed 22:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC))
• Merge and Delete per nom. --Daniel Olsen 23:33, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge & delete per nom. --Dhartung | Talk 01:45, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
• As author, Keep, this is one of a series of 97 articles on the Troubles in individual towns in Northern Ireland. It covers incidents of 2 fatalities or more, but the objective is to expand them all to cover all incidents - thus the need to retain the article. You also need to understand that these 97 articles are there because of substantial debate (see Wikipedia talk:Northern Irish Wikipedians' notice board) on this subject, the conclusion of which was that all troubles incidents articles should remain separate from town/village articles. I trust that now that you know the background you will remove the threat of deletion. Ardfern 11:32, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into a "The Troubles in County Londonderry" article and take articles such as The Troubles in Ballykelly The Troubles in Castlerock The Troubles in Claudy etc. with them --Henrygb 21:26, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment Ardfern, I see your point but as it is I don't think that the article is good enough to remain. I'll change my view to keep if this article is significantly expanded. Another problem is this article is that it's a dead end article, the only thing that links to it is the Moneymore article, which is why its seems so stupid. I understand the reasoning behind removing this information from the town pages, but the creation of all these stubby, dead end articles doesn't seem to be a better solution. If these articles just give the information given in CAIN then what is the point of them?

A decision needs to be made on these article by article, in this case, I think that a sentence in the Troubles section of Moneymore should be added reading something like "Between year x and year y, z people died in and near Moneymore as a result of the Troubles." with a link to the relevant CAIN page if people want more info.

If the Troubles in Moneymore article had all the informamation from all the deaths, plus a bit more, stuff from local newspapers of the time etc, what effect it had on the town, whether those killed were of any importance to the town, anything to stop this article just providing a list, to differentiate it from CAIN then I would support its existence. Sam Hayes 21:39, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Given time the article will be expanded by me and by others (as is the Wiki way). I am concerned that the stub concept is being eroded by the endless push to see immediate fully finalised articles - but I see no help from anyone here in adding more information - just criticism that the article isn't full enough (that is not the Wiki way). CAIN does not provide info by town, hence the value of this article in its connection to the village. I am continuing research on the troubles by town subject and will be developing the articles (hopefully with input from others). For heaven's sake give the stub time to grow. Ardfern 23:37, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment Well a search on CAIN gives all the relevant incidents, even if it doesn't list incidents by town. The extra information you added about the incident is good, makes the article infinitely better. I know stubs should be developed, but the proposal of delete wouldn't stop this, as the information would still be contained in the Moneymore article. If expanding the article just means adding CAIN info, then I can do it but as I said before, better information is needed, or its just a replication and adds no value to Wikipedia. Anyway, you've improved this article, so I will change my view to keep, and endevour to expand this article and help you with other articles in this category. Sam Hayes 22:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, per Ardfern. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 08:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment Sam, many thanks for helping to improve the article and for any help with improving others. Adding the CAIN info for all deaths by town/village is a first step, I will then be using other resources to flesh out the incidents and also to give them more local context. Thus thru Wiki co-operation we will have better, fuller articles - excellent job. Ardfern 18:12, 23 October 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.