Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rome Rule

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 Keep. Rjd0060 (talk) 03:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rome Rule

Rome Rule (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Non-notable phrase with no significant coverage from reliable sources BigDunc (talk) 20:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep. A pretty common term during the Home Rule crisis, and there is certainly enough coverage. There is no reason for WP not to have an explanation of this for anyone looking it up. The article's talk page has a more in depth discussion. -R. fiend (talk) 21:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep There is enough coverage of the phrase in reliable sources. The article is very short, not much more than a dictionary definition, and if there is not much potential for expansion then it should probably be merged into another article, but that can be decided separately from the AfD discussion. --Snigbrook (talk) 23:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. The slogan encapsulates the Protestant objection to Home Rule and it definitely should not be deleted but expanded. Contrary to the suggestions that it is peripheral to the issue of Home Rule and not important at all, I will give a few examples from reliable sources:
"Only sometimes enunciated but always present was the commonly held belief that 'Home Rule meant Rome Rule' ".--Alan O'Day, Irish Home Rule, 1867-1921 (Manchester University Press, 1998), p. 113.
"The economic argument [against Home Rule] carried conviction with all sectors of unionist opinion. But it was not basic to unionist rejection of Irish nationalism. 'Home Rule is Rome Rule' was the slogan that touched a really responsive chord in Protestant hearts".--Joseph Lee, Ireland, 1912-1985: Politics and Society (Cambridge University Press, 1990), p. 8.
"However, from the unionist point of view, 'home rule' meant 'Rome rule' since any future Irish parliament, unlike the wholly Protestant 'Grattan's parliament', would have a built-in Catholic majority".--S. J. Connolly (ed.), The Oxford Companion to Irish History (Oxford University Press, 2007), p. 184.
"In Wales, as in Ulster, many opposed the Irish home rule bill of 1886 on the grounds that home rule meant Rome rule".--S. J. Connolly (ed.), The Oxford Companion to Irish History (Oxford University Press, 2007), p. 613.
There are also books and pamphlets on "Rome Rule" as I stated on the talk page. Widespread amongst Protestants in Northern Ireland (even in the 1930s) was the view that the Irish Free State was dominated by the Catholic Church and discriminatory against Protestants, as can be seen in Dennis Kennedy's The Widening Gulf. Northern attitudes to the independent Irish state 1919-1949 (Blackstaff, 1988).--Johnbull (talk) 00:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: In initiating the delete debate on the article's talk page, I said that the topic had not received significant coverage in reliable sources, as opposed to mentioning it or quoting the slogan. Johnbull has now produced sources which may or may not "cover" the topic in that sense, so I find myself unable to vote delete or keep. I would like to see the "keep"s provide positive evidence of notabilty by expanding the article. At the moment it is only a dictionary definition, and shows no signs of ever becoming more, Johnbull's sources notwithstanding. It may be that the answer will be a merge, per Snigbrook, but only if there is at least one respectably-sized paragraph to merge. Scolaire (talk) 07:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete or Merge: A fringe term, as evidenced by a lack of citeable sources to its widespread use, relying on comment and opinion to suggest this instead. All we can provide is a dictionary type definition. For example Tiocfaid Ár Lá, (Our day will come), can be referenced to countless books on the IRA, T-Shirts, music CD’s, songs, magazines and even mouse mats, which express the belief of Irish Republicans that Irish unity is inevitable. Do we have an article on it, of course not? We include the term in the relevant article were it is applicable. Is Tiocfaid Ár Lá, in widespread use of course it is, more so than “Rome Rule” most definitely, do we have an article on it no. Same thing here, delete and merge the term into the relevant article were it is applicable. --Domer48 (talk) 07:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Eh, Tiocfaidh ár lá is an article. Scolaire (talk) 08:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Comment: Stick a {prod} template on it and I'll support it. Sorry about the wording there. Same thing, delete and merge the term into the relevant article were it is applicable. I would even suggest it as a footnote. --Domer48 (talk) 08:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Done! Scolaire (talk) 09:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
"Comment: "delete and merge" is usually not valid, as any merge needs to retain the article history, and while there are exceptions I fail to see how this is one. If the material covering the term is suitable for inclusion somewhere, why should the term itself not redirect to that article? I think a merge/redirect to a suitable article would be fine, but no one has suggested an appropriate article, and I don't know of one.
Furthermore, I don't think a prod is appropriate for Tiocfaidh ár lá either. Prods are generally for articles that are likely to be uncontroversially deleted, usually just shy of being a CSD. The non-notability rationale is appropriate for articles on that guy who falls down the stairs in that commercial, the guy who's running for city council, the guy who rants about crap on his blog, etc. Domer makes a pretty good case for the notability of the term above, and then supports deletion on the grounds of non-notability (again, saying "delete and merge", but not explaining why there should not be a redirect, or where it should be merged). Articles like that and this really need to go to AFD. As a general rule, any article with a long edit history should be sent to AFD rather than prodded. While there's no real harm in prodding it first, one has to understand the almost inevitability of the tag's removal. Last time I was criticized for removing the tag without discussion, however, if it requires discussion it's not a prod. (So this is what it feels like to be an inclusionist...weird). -R. fiend (talk) 13:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: "A Protestant Parliament for a Protestant people" an alternative example. Can be referenced no problem, a slogan / catch phrase, and a belief of some unionists. A quote by Craig, referenced in Irish Nationalism: A History of its Roots and Ideology, by Sean Cronin p.177, Modern Ireland, by Mark Tierney, p.230. Just to illustrate a point, its referenced and could be expanded way beyond "Rome Rule." Dose it deserve an independent article? I don’t think so. But if it did, "Rome Rule" would go in it. Same thing, delete and merge the term "Rome Rule" into the relevant article were it is applicable. --Domer48 (talk) 09:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Except that Craig never said that, he said "we are a Protestant Parliament and a Protestant State" after he cited the boast in the Free State that they are a Catholic state. Also, I'm not sure where people think this article should be merged into.--Johnbull (talk) 14:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Oh Please! "All I boast is that we are a Protestant Parliament for a Protestant people," said just after he became Lord Cragavon. A "reward for his rebellion against the British government during the Home Rule crisis." Also cited! It should be merged into the Home Rule article, I thought that was obvious? --Domer48 (talk) 14:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

No, that isn't right. Craig said on 24 April 1934 (seven years after becoming Viscount Craigavon): "The Hon. Member must remember that in the South they boasted of a Catholic State. They still boast of Southern Ireland being a Catholic State. All I boast is that we are a Protestant Parliament and a Protestant State".--Jonathan Bardon, A History of Ulster (Blackstaff, 2005), pp. 538-9, taken from Parliamentary Debates (Northern Ireland House of Commons), vol. 16, cols 1091, 1095.--Johnbull (talk) 15:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Well Diarmaid Ferriter, Ireland 1900-2000, p.281, Patrick Buckland, The Factory of Grievances: Devolved Government in Northern Ireland 1921-1939, p.72 and the two previous sources I cited would disagree. So much for a fear of Rome Rule either way. --Domer48 (talk) 16:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I have given the official Hansard reference, which proves beyond doubt what Craig said. So far you have given neither the date nor the place where he supposedly said what you and others attribute to him. I think you should use accurate and reliable sources from now on.--Johnbull (talk) 16:19, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Would you like to pick one. Because I'm not sure which to use. --Domer48 (talk) 17:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
None of them; they are all unreliable since they don't give the date or the place, and when they do ("declared in Parliament in 1934 that the Northern Ireland regime was..."/"Although it was not until 1934 that Craig notoriously spoke of a...") they are misquoting him. Like I said, I would only use reliable sources. It has been proven wrong anyway since I gave the official report from Stormont's Hansard.--Johnbull (talk) 17:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Rubbishing of 154 sources, let me suggest one for you.--Domer48 (talk) 22:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
You're getting pretty desperate now, Domer48, please just admit Craig never said "a Protestant Parliament for a Protestant people". That link just shows two speakers misquoting Craig, just as all your other "sources" do. I have given the Hansard: let it rest.--Johnbull (talk) 22:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Would you like to pick one of 154 cited sources. --Domer48 (talk) 22:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Could it be he said both? In any case, it's irrelevant to this discussion. If someone wants to write an article on that phrase they are free to, and it can be discussed on its merits, but it doesn't have any bearing on this. And note that articles on phrases are not uncommon. I've collected a sample of but a few here; it is by no means an exhaustive list, just a few I came across after a quick search. -R. fiend (talk) 15:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Comment: You're right that it's irrelevant, but it nicely illustrates the danger of using as "sources" otherwise authoritative authors that misquote a phrase and/or quote it out of context - in this case 154 of them! Notability must be based on more than just "such-and-such an eminent author alluded to it here." Scolaire (talk) 07:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
That is my whole object in carrying on a Protestant Government for a Protestant people [1]. I suspect the two phrases have become intertwined. Aatomic1 (talk) 11:50, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. - Kittybrewster ☎ 09:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. This was a political catchphrase of the late 19th/early 20th century and beyond. That it was even proposed for deletion is amazing. But we've seen the tag-team of BigDunc and Domer48 in action before!--Damac (talk) 21:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Damac are you still harping on with your conspiracy theories get a grip would you. This AfD has nothing to do with your alleged conspiracies, so grow up and stop with your rubbish.BigDunc (talk) 22:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
(ec) That it was a catchphrase doesn't make it notable; the grounds for deleting it are reasonable, whether they are judged to be correct or not; and a personal attack is not a proper or an intelligent argument for keeping. Please remain civil. Scolaire (talk) 22:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
The reason given by BigDunc for deleting the article was "Non-notable phrase with no significant coverage from reliable sources". This has clearly been shown to be false, making BigDunc's justification unreasonable in my book.--Damac (talk) 17:40, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Incorrect in your book, maybe (and Google Books searches prove nothing, as we've seen), but it was not unreasonable. At any rate there is and can be no justification in talking about 'tag-teams'. AGF, NPA and CIVIL apply in AfDs as elsewhere. Scolaire (talk) 18:00, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
This is the last time I will take personal attack from you Damac and I will report the next time you do.BigDunc (talk) 18:23, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment:I’m still not seeing significant coverage of its use or coverage of the term its self? The example I have used above shows 154 publications (be they right or wrong) which cite the phrase/slogan/catch phrase “A Protestant Parliament for a Protestant people.” --Domer48 (talk) 17:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment:What about some of these 657 hits?--Damac (talk) 19:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Domer, if you think there should be an article on A Protestant Parliament for a Protestant people feel free to write one. I won't nominate it for deletion. We've already established plenty of slogans and phrases have articles here. It just has nothing to do with this article. -R. fiend (talk) 01:25, 12 April 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.