Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Troubles in Tynan

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 Naconkantari 18:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Troubles in Tynan

Article is a stub which only contains information on an incident amply covered in Norman Stronge and James Stronge. No reason for it to exist. --SandyDancer 12:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Seconded, although I do think it is, perhaps, part of a series some chap is undertaking, including lots of towns in Ulster.--Couter-revolutionary 12:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep: This is part of a series of articles that have been building up over the last year to document incidents that have taken place as a result of The Troubles in Northern Ireland in a consistent, neutral and thought out manner. Ben W Bell talk 15:20, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment The article is misleadingly written and is going to be a stub forever though. I have taken a look and see that indeed scores of similar articles have been created, none of them offering much and none of them written in an encylopedic style. The intro wording in each suggests that the article is about a book or something (read it and you will see). They all need to be cleaned-up dramatically or deleted. --SandyDancer 15:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree I can see where you got the idea it was a book from the first line, however it's also written correctly as if it was a book it would say (and if all Wikipedia articles were written correctly the world would be a happy place, but alas). The first sentence could probably be reworded to avoid that confusion, but it does recount useful information about a very notable period of Northern Ireland's history. Saying all these articles need deleted, I'm not sure I'm with your reasoning as to why they do? They're factually correct, definitely notable and the articles are presented in a useful form rather than being spread all over Wikipedia in different types of articles. Also what is wrong with stubs? There seems to be some kind of mistaken belief on Wikipedia that stubs should not exist. There is nothing wrong with short articles, not everything has to be an essay. Ben W Bell talk 16:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. So let me make myself clearer: this article doesn't impart information that is not provided elsewhere on Wikipedia already, and it never will. Therefore it is pointless. --SandyDancer 20:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep: For god's sake not again - this is the third time I have had to defend these articles, because people don't bother to do any research. See Wikipedia talk:Northern Irish Wikipedians' notice board (Violence articles and death statistics in towns) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Troubles in Moneymore. All arguments have been fully rehearsed previously and the arguments in the last link are very pertinent. These are stub articles - help to develop them, not kill them off. The comment on the Stronge article and Tynan shows the deficiency in real thinking - there are plenty of other Tynan incidents to add - but reasearch needs to be finalised and added in due course. Give us a chance to develop these articles. Ardfern 16:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment No need to be so strident in your reponse. There are good reasons why you are being called to defend this article. And I didn't know they'd been nominated before - there is nothing on the talk page saying they have. Perhaps if they were cleaned-up and written in an encylopedic style it might help? Take the opening gambit: "The Troubles in Tynan recounts incidents during, and the effects of, The Troubles in Tynan, County Armagh, Northern Ireland." Does the article on World War II begin "World War II recountsa conflict, and the causes and effects of that conflict, fought between 1939-1945"?

However clean-up isn't really what is needed - these articles shouldn't have been started in the first place. Wikipedia is not a memorial. These articles are going to remain stubs and you should have thought before starting them all. --SandyDancer 16:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment Not sure you even understand the word strident, if you think thats what my response was. If you can improve the articles then do it, if they need cleaned up then, make a suggestion? Don't just make destructive criticism, without offering something positive. Your "memorial" comments are deeply offensive to people like me who lived through the Troubles and perhaps its you who needs to do some serious thinking before you comment further. These articles (when completed) will be the story of a 30 year war in each town in Northern Ireland. They will be notable, valuable and encyclopedic in due course, but only when given a chance. They will not remain stubs and a lot of thought and research went into starting them. To suggest there was no thinking behind starting off 97 articles is nothing more than another insult. I'm not the one not thinking. Ardfern 23:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I was quoting a wikipedia guideline - which I believe was set up in response to a lot of pages created in response to the 9-11 attacks in the US. The same logic applies here. No need to take offence - but Wikipedia is not the place to set up a directory of any and all incidents of sectarian violence which occurred in N. Ireland. Its an encyclopedia - not just a random collection of information. You have adopted a combative approach to this from the beginning and you seem to see this as a personal attack. For the record, it isn't. --SandyDancer 23:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Further comment Combative moi - imagine that. You have researched and written a large number of related articles as part of a major work on the Troubles (not a random collection of information!!) and someone (who knows nothing of the subject or the work, or even tries to find out) proposes to delete the work. Why would you be combative? Are you for real? Ardfern 23:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Do not flatter yourself. What you have created is only major in the sense that it consists of lots of articles, written in a bizarre style, low on content, and inappropriate (in their current form) for an encyclopedia. If you want to set up a directory of incidents that occurred during the Troubles, set up a website and do so there - but only notable people, things and events should have articles on Wikipedia. --SandyDancer 23:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. I can see the value of these articles as part of a series, but please rewrite the intro paragraphs. "The Troubles in Tynan recounts..." etc. These are encyclopaedia articles, not book reviews, which is how they currently read. -- Necrothesp 16:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep A significant part of Northern Irish history, and a very useful series. Apart from introductions, which can be easily changed, the articles are well written and concise. Size shouldn't be an issue. « Keith » 16:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The strategy of short specific articles is uncommon, but is also used for much less notable topics such as railway stations and census districts. As with those, it helps the main placename articles like Tynan have a more uniform worldwide style. Perhaps a bot request could be made to drop onto each article talk page a template that links to the rationale behind the series ? --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 16:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Perhaps the contributors to this series could suspend substantive additions for a while in order to arrive at a good common format, with series boxes, templates, etc to emphasise that the articles are all in a series. When this work is done, it is less likely they will be annoyed by further RFDs. jnestorius^(talk) 18:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there is such a thing as suspending substantive additions on a wiki. Meanwhile, as my small bit to help, I have created Wikipedia:WikiProject Northern Ireland/Troubles to explain any new templates the community might decide on. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 08:00, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting an enforceable official moratorium; I'm simply offering some (disregardable) advice to those interested as to a possible way to (voluntarily) organise their work in a manner which might attract less negative feedback. I think your subproject page will prove useful. jnestorius^(talk) 17:30, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

項目名

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.