Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coins of Ulster

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 MERGE to Coins of Ireland. — JIP | Talk 14:37, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Coins of Ulster

POV-fork of both Coinage of the Republic of Ireland and British coinage. Along with Coins of Ireland, created by a user with a revisionist agenda, content is entirely duplicated and un-needed. Kiand 12:24, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

• Merge relevant content into Coinage of the Republic of Ireland, if any. ECU coinage seems to need an article though. :: Supergolden 16:38, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Lapsed Pacifist 19:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment unless it can be shown that this article can exist in its own right as a substantial article, then delete. This material has no place in a Republic of Ireland article (so merging is pointless) because they are two separate jurisdictions also as it is simply about private pattern coins which have no more legal tender status than bottle tops - they are coins only in so far as they are metal disks. Djegan 19:33, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. Ulster and the Republic of Ireland are not mutually exclusive, DJ.
  • Comment unless we are acting dumb then we know that "Ulster" means "Northern Ireland" in this context. In any case neither ever produced its own official coinage. Djegan 19:39, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. I fear some of us have no need to act. Why should there be any confusion over Ulster? There was no "Northern Ireland" statelet when John de Courcy issued coinage. Lapsed Pacifist 19:47, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment You have got me this time LP, but in any case you do not create a article for the words "There was a series of baronial coins issued by John de Courcy, Earl of Ulster. Current details of these coins are not yet available". If anything it should be merged to Coins of Ireland. As for the private patterns their still as worthless as bottle tops. Djegan 19:52, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge, but delete this article title as it is an artificial distinction. Djegan 21:08, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into Coins of Ireland since the current geographical boundaries are relatively recent, there should be an article to cover pre-republican state. Jtmichcock 01:30, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into Coins of Ireland and delete (no redirect) unless there are sufficient details to merit a sub-article of its own. That doesn't however appear to be the case. zoney ♣ talk 14:30, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into Coins of Ireland until section is large enough to warrant own article. --Alf ^melmac 12:33, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Merge Rich Farmbrough. 23:07, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and Redirect I understand the want to have space for each and every individuality, but untill these articles can substantiate themselves... Maybe you should title the article "tokens" if these are not institutionalized "coins"? Joe I 23:20, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ulster did have their own coins.

As I have stated in the article, Ulster did have their own coins. They were a baronial issue that was issued by John de Courcy. That is more reason of why it should not be merged into Coins of Ireland. - (Aidan Work 01:29, 21 December 2005 (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.