Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Commonwealth kingdom
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 delete. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 23:56, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Commonwealth kingdom
The page seems to be about a term that has been made up. A simple internal search of the Commonwealth secreteriat webiste proves that such a term does not exist! Furthermore the article only seems to contain original research! Cameron (t|p|c) 21:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete -- as nominator...--Cameron (t|p|c) 21:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete GoodDay (talk) 21:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- Comment Why? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 21:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment, per nomination. GoodDay (talk) 21:36, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment, why not? --Cameron (t|p|c) 15:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. On Google the term "commonwealth" does refer to the 53 sovereign nations but then within this article when you click on commonwealth of nations you get all of the appropriate information. So I think this article is redundant, though it's a pretty chart (but then I notice an expanded version of the pretty chart is in the article highlighted above). Renee (talk) 22:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per Renee. —Nightstallion 23:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - term appears to have been made up. Stifle (talk) 20:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- Alternative View. - It appears that a consensus for deleting/merging both the Commonwealth republic and Commonwealth kingdom articles into Commonwealth of Nations is emerging. I support that idea and agree (with User:Cameron and others) that frankly both articles are a joke and not appropriate for an encyclopedia. My initial support for there being a Commonwealth kingdom article was premised on the fact that there was a Commonwealth republic article. I hope there will be volunteers for the work. I will help! However, this does beg the question why is Commonwealth republic not also nominated for deletion. Presumably because there is little extra information to "merge" into the Commonwealth of Nations article. I'm happy to support deleting Commonwealth kingdom but only if Commonwealth republic is merged. Redking7 (talk) 21:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- What makes you think anyone here wants to merge? = ) So far nobody has !voted for a merge. As the term 'Commonwealth kingdom' does not exist the whole page ought to be deleted...it should not even be kept as a redirect. You can nominate Commonwealth republic yourself if you so wish but this is the page regarding the deletion for 'Commonwealth kingdom'. --Cameron (t|p|c) 12:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- I don't understand your comment above User: Cameron. On the Talk: Commonwealth kingdom page, in reply to the assertion by User:GoodDay that "The Commonwealth republics must stay. What else would you call a republic within the Commonwealth of Nations?" - you replied "Perhaps list of republics within the commonwealth? I agree with TharkunColl and g2; both this and the commonwealth republic articles are, quite frankly, a joke...and need to be dealt with!". I understood this to mean that you thought that both the Commonwealth republic article and the Commonwealth kingdom article were unsuitable for an encyclopedia and that both terms were also dubious? Regards. Redking7 (talk) 19:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- What makes you think anyone here wants to merge? = ) So far nobody has !voted for a merge. As the term 'Commonwealth kingdom' does not exist the whole page ought to be deleted...it should not even be kept as a redirect. You can nominate Commonwealth republic yourself if you so wish but this is the page regarding the deletion for 'Commonwealth kingdom'. --Cameron (t|p|c) 12:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Alternative View. - It appears that a consensus for deleting/merging both the Commonwealth republic and Commonwealth kingdom articles into Commonwealth of Nations is emerging. I support that idea and agree (with User:Cameron and others) that frankly both articles are a joke and not appropriate for an encyclopedia. My initial support for there being a Commonwealth kingdom article was premised on the fact that there was a Commonwealth republic article. I hope there will be volunteers for the work. I will help! However, this does beg the question why is Commonwealth republic not also nominated for deletion. Presumably because there is little extra information to "merge" into the Commonwealth of Nations article. I'm happy to support deleting Commonwealth kingdom but only if Commonwealth republic is merged. Redking7 (talk) 21:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- Delete per all above. --Anna Lincoln (talk) 15:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with what's been said. 'Commonwealth kingdom' as distinct from 'Commonwealth realm' is entirely arbitary. So too is 'Commonwealth republic'. At various times in discussions at 'Commonwealth realm' it was asked how to distinguish kingdoms with indigenous monarchs from realms in the Commonwealth with Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom as their monarch. As I see it, there is no need to. Some users seem to be anxious to classify and organise states that do not need to be classified. Thus we have articles such as federal monarchy, Commonwealth kingdom, etc. I'll admit that Commonwealth realm is used infrequently, but even here, there is a desire to use it as an organisational tool far out of proportion to its actual significance.--Gazzster (talk) 01:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- I'm intrigued, would you oblige me with an answer as to why you find the term out of proportion? --Cameron (t|p|c) 12:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- Well perhaps I shouldn't have mentioned that, since our focus is the term Commonwealth kingdom. I don't deny that Commonwealth realm is a term that is used. But it's a quite informal term. I believe the Commonwealth of Nations uses it sometimes, as do some monarchy-related organisations. But there is no association of nations called 'the Commonwealth Realms'. There was a very long discussion last year at Commonwealth realm over whether the r in realm should be capitalised or not. It sounds daft, but it was objected that Realm made it sound as if CRs were an association of nations, which of course, they are not. They are all sovereign and unique. The closest that they come to be grouped together is in the Queen's title:'Queen of the United Kingdom and her other realms and territories, etc.'So you seev it is, as I say, an informal term. You would certainly not see an entry on it in the Britannica or Americana or Webster's. As far as I can see, only Wikipedia treats of it as an organisational tool. But that's by the by. --Gazzster (talk) 12:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- Ah, that argument again. I'm (still) not quite convinced = ) but by all means, raise it at Talk:Commonwealth_realm or WP:CWR!--Cameron (t|p|c) 20:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- I don't particularly want to raise it again. I was just remarking that if we delete Commonwealth kingdom and Commonwealth republic because the terms aren't justified by the literature we could make a similar case for Commonwealth realm. But I don't want to get bogged down in that for another twenty pages.--Gazzster (talk) 23:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- I tend to agree with you User:Gazzster. All three terms are of pretty questionable vintage! By way of comparison, we don't hear people refer to United Nations republics or United Nations kingdoms etc! Beyond that, I can add little to what I have said already. All three terms, of course, have no legal meaning. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 20:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Of course Commonwealth realm is another matter, but I think we should be more careful with possibly dispensing with its article than with Commonwealth kingdom and Commonwealth republic. As has already been mentioned, Commonwealth realm is a term existant beyond Wikipedia. Also, the content of Commonwealth realm alone shows that there is enough to warrant its existence; the union is a personal one rather than official, but there is obviously a history to the relationship and certain distinguishing features of it. Republics and non-realm kingdoms in the Commonwealth, on the other hand, have nothing in common besides being, well, in the Commonwealth. --G2bambino (talk) 21:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- I tend to agree with you User:Gazzster. All three terms are of pretty questionable vintage! By way of comparison, we don't hear people refer to United Nations republics or United Nations kingdoms etc! Beyond that, I can add little to what I have said already. All three terms, of course, have no legal meaning. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 20:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- I don't particularly want to raise it again. I was just remarking that if we delete Commonwealth kingdom and Commonwealth republic because the terms aren't justified by the literature we could make a similar case for Commonwealth realm. But I don't want to get bogged down in that for another twenty pages.--Gazzster (talk) 23:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- Ah, that argument again. I'm (still) not quite convinced = ) but by all means, raise it at Talk:Commonwealth_realm or WP:CWR!--Cameron (t|p|c) 20:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- Well perhaps I shouldn't have mentioned that, since our focus is the term Commonwealth kingdom. I don't deny that Commonwealth realm is a term that is used. But it's a quite informal term. I believe the Commonwealth of Nations uses it sometimes, as do some monarchy-related organisations. But there is no association of nations called 'the Commonwealth Realms'. There was a very long discussion last year at Commonwealth realm over whether the r in realm should be capitalised or not. It sounds daft, but it was objected that Realm made it sound as if CRs were an association of nations, which of course, they are not. They are all sovereign and unique. The closest that they come to be grouped together is in the Queen's title:'Queen of the United Kingdom and her other realms and territories, etc.'So you seev it is, as I say, an informal term. You would certainly not see an entry on it in the Britannica or Americana or Webster's. As far as I can see, only Wikipedia treats of it as an organisational tool. But that's by the by. --Gazzster (talk) 12:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- I'm intrigued, would you oblige me with an answer as to why you find the term out of proportion? --Cameron (t|p|c) 12:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- Very well said, I agree!--Cameron (t|p|c) 10:18, 10 May 2008 (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.
