Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Ireland

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting

Points of interest related to Ireland on Wikipedia
Basic list - Portal - Category - WikiProject - Stubs - Deletions - Cleanup

Deletion Sorting
Project

Project page	(talk)
Lists (by ABC)
Lists (by topic)

AfD: Today, Yesterday

edit · changes

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Ireland. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting.

You can help maintain the list on this page:

To add a new AfD discussion (once it has already been opened on WP:AFD):

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You can also tag the AfD by adding

{{subst:delsort|Ireland}}<small>—~~~~</small>

to it, which will inform users that it has been listed here.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
You can also add and remove links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Ireland.

Please note that adding an AfD to, or removing it from, this page does not add it to, or remove it from, the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page, before adding it to this page.

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to Europe

Relevant archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Ireland/archive.

Purge page cache

Watch this page

See also: Wikipedia:Irish Wikipedians' notice board

1 Ireland

[edit] Ireland

[edit] Lisbon Treaty - Irish Ratification

This article should be deleted on the grounds that is it wholly inappropriate. The creator of this article stated that: There is confusion in Ireland over whether this will be good for the country or otherwise, and an excess of information from many extreme points of view is adding to this. This article has been created in order to invite an impartial combination of sources into a brief summary to help the general public. This is the job of the Irish Referendum Commission not Wikipedia. Wikipedia is there to provide factual articles on the Lisbon Treaty / Referendum / Ratification not help the general public make up their minds on which way to vote. Wikipedia is not a blog or a forum for discussion. Finally, the points in the article about the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty are not unique to Ireland and will affect the whole of the EU if the treaty is ratified. Snappy56 (talk) 17:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —Snappy56 (talk) 17:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Delete per nom; Ireland's referendum is well covered in the Treaty of Lisbon article. ww2censor (talk) 17:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Delete per nom. This article is an essay on the pros and cons of the treaty, and is not an encyclopedic article in the conventional sense. It is better suited to a blog or similar, and is decidedly suspect in terms of the following Wikipedia principles: Soapbox-esque, Reads like a blog, Reads like a manual, guide or "how to" advice, Does not represent a global perspective, etc. Guliolopez (talk) 17:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Agreed, it's also almost exclusively edited by anons who have made almost no other contributions, not grounds for deletion but a little bit suspicious, I wonder would wikiscanner reveal anything?! Snappy56 (talk) 17:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Redirect to Twenty-eighth Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland which covers it correctly. This seems to be a fork. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gtstricky (talk • contribs) 17:53, 10 June 2008
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Bláthnaid 19:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Delete I agree with the nominator. This article falls under WP:NOTGUIDE. Twenty-eighth Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland covers Ireland's referendum on the Lisbon Treaty in an encyclopedic manner. Also, the article will be redundant after Thursday. Bláthnaid 19:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Delete per nomination, clearly. —Nightstallion 22:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Delete per nom, or rewrite article to fit a more encyclopaedic style. --129.67.162.133 (talk) 21:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Merge any non redundant content and redirect links to this article to Twenty-eighth Amendment of the constitution of Ireland as per above. I think the suggestion this is an inappropriate topic for wiki is nonsense ~ we are here to inform! - but there is already an article. Sandpiper (talk) 08:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Delete per nom, utterly inappropriate for Wikipedia. And Redirect to Twenty-eighth Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland as per Gtstricky, which indeed does cover the ratification properly. -- Blorg (talk) 14:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Delete unless it is rewriten as a factual encyclopaedic article, which I think it could be. It is a significant political event after all.PiTalk - Contribs 16:05, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- Twenty-eighth Amendment of the Constitution Bill, 2008 already pretty much covers that. David Mestel^(Talk) 17:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I see, yeah delete then. PiTalk - Contribs 18:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Delete per nom. I had a look at the article earlier in the week to see if it was salvagable, with a view to turning it into an article entitled Positions regarding the Twenty-eighth Amendment to the Constitution of Ireland, or entries on Wikiquote. Unfortunately on closer examination, the vast majority of the pro citations were from http://www.labour.ie/lisbonreformtreaty/whyyes/, and the vast majority of the con citations were from http://www.no2lisbon.ie/en/topic/5: the piece was effectively a Labour vs. Sinn Féin polemic. The work involved in obtaining quotations from other sources, pro, con and neutral, was beyond me in the time available: the piece was a bit of an October Surprise. If anybody else wants to devote the time to sourcing the quotations of notable entities concerning this matter then there may be a case for keeping it, but given the referendum is now over there seems little point. The article is unsatisfactory in its present condition per the observations above and there already exists another article on the same subject. If User:Sandpiper wishes to seek and obtain a wide variety of pro, con and neutral sources concerning the referendum then he is perfectly free to do so and place them on the article now entitled Twenty-eighth Amendment of the Constitution Bill, 2008. As for the article entitled Lisbon Treaty - Irish Ratification: delete it. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 18:59, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

*Keep I think that given that the vote failed, an article is entirely appropriate. It needs to be re-written to be neutral, but it's entirely encyclopedic and notable. GreenJoe 20:06, 13 June 2008 (UTC) Delete and redirect to Twenty-eighth Amendment of the Constitution Bill, 2008. GreenJoe 01:38, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

- Twenty-eighth Amendment of the Constitution Bill, 2008 already pretty much covers that. Anameofmyveryown (talk) 01:14, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Treaty of Lisbon is already too long; merge and redirect to Twenty-eighth Amendment of the Constitution Bill, 2008 as this is more or less a duplicate of that with more information. Stifle (talk) 22:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC) Delete, Wikipedia is not for arguments for and against the treaty, violates WP:SOAPBOX among others. Stifle (talk) 22:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

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 No consensus - Recommend to follow the advice by Peterkingiron to merge these two articles into one in which a full century is presented, alongside other material that may provide context about their validity. sources, etc. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 80 in Ireland

The source(s) for these article are primary sources, specifically Irish annals, but there are not accepted as having much if any reliability before the 5th century at the very earliest, and more plausibly the 6th: "Irish annalistic records at such an early period are not to be taken as historically authentic" [Fergus Kelly, "Cormac mac Airt", Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, here]. Any discussion of a "historical" Túathal Techtmar, always assuming that to be a good idea, belongs in a Roman Ireland article fenced around with if, and but, and perhaps, and with archaeologically imprecise dates, if any.

Also included, since it's in the same era and equally implausibly dated and involves Túathal Techtmar:

76 in Ireland (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

There is little point in merging this material as it will be equally unverifiable if merged. The most recent source on Irish chronology is Volume VIII of the Royal Irish Academy's New History of Ireland and this contains neither of these items. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment - "Roman Ireland"????? — iridescent 20:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, really, Roman Ireland. I've read Martino's book. It's not as cranky as you might think, although there's an awful lot of it is really stretching. More conventionally there's a fair bit on Roman contacts in Mytum's Early Christian Ireland and a page or two in Raftery's Pagan Celtic Iron Age. Roman Ireland would need ifs, and buts, and maybes, and very careful attribution, but it would be much easier to write than 3rd century in Ireland. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
For the article, as with other early periods in Ireland, Merge inot articles on entire centuries, which MUST be accompanied by an explanation of how much credence is to be placed on them, since historians regard the events and figures described as legendary (not historical). The legendary events are potentially appropriate for inclusion in WP, provided it is made clear what they are. As to Roman Ireland, I believe there is evidence of one Roman fort, and this and Irish contracts with Britain might make an article on Roman Ireland. However the archeological periods in Ireland are Iron Age and Early Christian, rather than (England's) Roman, Dark Age, and Saxon. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Delete as per nom. Unless every other country/region in the world has Year in articles then Ireland should be no exception. P.S. Roman Ireland is a non starter, don't even attempt to go there, it'll be AfD'd so fast....! Snappy56 (talk) 11:50, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Merge to an appropriate article about the period in Irish history. FWIW, the Irish annals are certainly subject to some commentary by historians. In one sense, their lack of corroboration by other sources makes them in some sense infallible. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Delete per issues raised in the nom + no demonstrable need for this as a standalone. Eusebeus (talk) 22:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Delete: Per all the above delete arguments, I do not want to repeat the arguments. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 20:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Weak Keep - "history" did not have the same definition in c. 500 A.D. as it does today. I support keeping IF we can get a cite from one of the annals. Otherwise, merge and redirect to Ireland in the 80s. Bearian (talk) 18:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Keep per significance in real world and just note in article concerns over sourc reliability. We could say, some sources claim X about 80 in Ireland, but these claims are disputed. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:29, 6 June 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.