Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Devonwall (UK Parliament constituency)
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, as there controversy itself does not violate WP:CRYSTALBALL. However, this does not preclude renaming or even merging if there is consensus to do so (indeed, a rename at least seems appropriate to me as long as this remains a controversy and not a definitive seat). Rlendog (talk) 17:54, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Devonwall (UK Parliament constituency) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article is in breach of WP:CRYSTALBALL, specifically points 2, 3 and 5. At the moment there is only speculation that such a constituency will be created and there is no evidence that such a constituency will named Devonwall. Also at a time of the UK referendum the existence of this article could be seen as electioneering. For a more in-depth rationale, please see Talk:Devonwall (UK Parliament constituency)#Concern Zangar (talk) 09:40, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as crystal gazing. I share concerns about the tone and content, particularly the assertion that the constituency exists and has been named. That could be fixed if we knew it was going to happen, but we do not. There will be a lot of debate over the new constituency boundaries and names, but we cannot allow articles on every single proposal for each of them because the articles can inevitably then be used as political fodder see, it must be real, there's a Wikipeida article about it. --AJHingston (talk) 11:04, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —Zangar (talk) 15:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —Zangar (talk) 15:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious delete. The boundary commission hasn't even started drawing up the new constituencies yet. There may or may not be a cross-border constituency between Cornwall and Devon, but there again there might not. This issue was a controversial one during the debate of the bill, that that is already mentioned in Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 16:12, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]Delete - does not provide verifiable sources for the statements made; existence of the article is misleading and no definition of the districts included is given. Saltash and [part of] Devon is inadequate as a definition.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 11:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]- Obvious keep once it's been renamed to "Devonwall (proposed UK Parliament constituency)" and cleaned up. It doesn't fail WP:CRYSTAL because the article is not about a non-existent constituency: it's about the controversy surrounding the possible creation of such a constituency. The problem is the way the article has been written. As CRYSTAL states: "All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred." Well, it's certainly verifiable (and notable) - there are many news reports and the name has been mentioned in Parliament - and if it already existed it would merit its own article alongside these. CRYSTAL continues "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about ... whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced", which is exactly what this article should aim to do. To further refute Zangar's arguments (sorry, nothing personal!) it doesn't fail CRYSTAL point 2 because it isn't part of a "predetermined list or a systematic pattern of names" about which "only generic information is known". It doesn't fail point 3 because it reports the position now, and doesn't (or won't once I've edited it) speculate about the future. And point 5 takes us back to the start of my argument - the article is about the controversy, not the non-existent constituency. —SMALLJIM 14:30, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- However, it does not follow that every single controversial aspect of an Act of Parliament should be reported in a separate article, nor do I think we should be having an article on a constituency that might come into play (even ones reported in the news) just because existing constituencies have articles. Putting individual aspects of controversial legislation into separate articles is generally a bad thing because they become easy targets for POV forks - indeed, this article already seems to give undue weight to anti-Devonwall comments. The issue is already covered in Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011, and even if it's expanded to include the additional information given in this article, it would still fit easily into this article. If we are to start creating articles on every constituency that people say might be created as a result of this Act, it's going to be an unworkable mess. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 17:27, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with all that, Chris, and if someone started creating such articles, I'd support their deletion. But the refs indicate that this topic satisfies the GNG. —SMALLJIM 20:26, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well done on the article rewrite SJ. I concede that I misread point 2 of CRYSTAL, thanks for pointing that out. But I still feel that the content with the title (and proposed one) still contravenes points 3 and 5. At the moment the name "Devonwall" is only really used as a quasi-description within the popular press - I know that you referenced Hansard in the article, but it was used only once and within quote marks, only really verifying that is was said - not that a constituency will be named as such. The proposed title still does not match with the content; "Devonwall (proposed UK Parliament constituency)" assumes that a constituency with the name "Devonwall" maybe introduced. It also does not point to the fact that the article does pertain to the discussions and controversy, it sounds more like it has been proposed but not yet implemented - this will only happen when the Boundary Commissions report back and until then it will only be speculation and extrapolation, contravening the above points. Although these speculations can be verified as happening, CRYSTAL requires that they be "stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field" - newspapers and the BBC are experts in the field of news delivery not political boundary reform, which is the field of this proposal. Zangar (talk) 13:23, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with all that, Chris, and if someone started creating such articles, I'd support their deletion. But the refs indicate that this topic satisfies the GNG. —SMALLJIM 20:26, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- However, it does not follow that every single controversial aspect of an Act of Parliament should be reported in a separate article, nor do I think we should be having an article on a constituency that might come into play (even ones reported in the news) just because existing constituencies have articles. Putting individual aspects of controversial legislation into separate articles is generally a bad thing because they become easy targets for POV forks - indeed, this article already seems to give undue weight to anti-Devonwall comments. The issue is already covered in Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011, and even if it's expanded to include the additional information given in this article, it would still fit easily into this article. If we are to start creating articles on every constituency that people say might be created as a result of this Act, it's going to be an unworkable mess. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 17:27, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I admit that my feelings are with Zangar on this one. For the benefit of non-UK readers of this I should explain that the boundaries of Parliamentary constituencies are to be altered so that each contains approximately the same number of people. These boundaries are reviewed regularly by the Boundary Commission anhd there are almost always arguments over boundaries. They will be more acute this time because the Boundary Commissions will be under a much stricter to equalise size. Since the voting population of Cornwall is not exactly divisible by the 75,000 or so that will be the new average it is almost inevitable that there will be one constituency that will straddle the boundary between Cornwall and Devon. But we will not know until the proposals are announced in the autumn. Yes, there is local opposition to the possibility, and as with all these things there is a party political interest both because it could affect the electoral outcome locally and because equalising constituencies is seen as benefitting the Conservative Party nationally. Against all that, we can be sure the new constituency will not be called Devonwall (the two counties are not to be combined, just a few thousand obliged to share an MP), and until the proposals are published people will not know where it is to be. Wikipedia is not really the place for recording local campaigns of this sort especially if it can be dealt with in the main article on a topic. However, if a neutral point of view can be maintained (which requires explaining the case in favour of change and why it may be difficult to achieve equalisation without a cross boundary solution) I would not be totally opposed to its staying pending merger into an article about the new constiuenc(y/ies). --AJHingston (talk) 14:22, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for both those comments - hope you won't object to some bullets in response :)
* 1. Is it a notable topic? Yes, the controversy satisfies the GNG.
* 2. Does it fall foul of WP:CRYSTAL? No, because it's about the existing controversy, like many of these articles about proposed things. Yes, I know about OSE!
* 3. Will the constituency (if it is created) be called "Devonwall"? Of course not, but since that's the only term that's been used to describe it, that's what we must use.
* 4. What should the title be? I'm not so sure now. Devonwall (controversy surrounding possible UK Parliament constituency) is probably the most descriptive, but WP:NAME suggests something more concise is better as long as it is unambiguous. Maybe Devonwall (possible UK Parliament constituency) would be OK?
* 5. Should the article be improved? Definitely. For instance, Proposed Outlying Landing Field has sections entitled "Motivations" and "Opposition" which would fit the article nicely.
* 6. Are any of these points other than 1 and 2 relevant to this AfD? No.
I should perhaps add that I spotted this AfD on the Devon article alerts page. I'd never heard of "Devonwall", but after doing a bit of research I thought that the article, though written from completely the wrong angle, dealt with a notable topic and should be kept to inform others who hear the strange term and wonder what it's about. —SMALLJIM 16:45, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]- Thanks for the reply, I do agree with all your points except 2 (in its current form). I have no problem with articles about proposed things. So I suppose after your rewrite my main problem is the use of the term "Devonwall" which does violate the line "Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included, though editors should be aware of creating undue bias to any specific point-of-view" in CRYSTAL, and its inclusion in the title (even those you suggest) and prominance in the article means that it goes on to violate those specific points. But I think if the article were to be renamed something on the lines on Proposed Conwall-Devon UK Parliament constituency and "Devonwall" was not given prominance (e.g. not being the first sentence in the article), there would be less to object to. Although with regards to your examples of other "proposed" articles I notice that nearly all of them (which were not redirects) were about something where a plan was in place or a specific proposal was made. At the moment the plan is the boundary review; a Cornwall-Devon constituency is just a possible, extrapolated, by-product. Zangar (talk) 17:33, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, that's the point on which we differ. I don't see how the article could not contain "Devonwall" in its title since that's what all the sources call it (see WP:NAME), and it's what anyone looking for info on it would search for. But this is a discussion for the article talk page (assuming it's kept). —SMALLJIM 20:38, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the reply, I do agree with all your points except 2 (in its current form). I have no problem with articles about proposed things. So I suppose after your rewrite my main problem is the use of the term "Devonwall" which does violate the line "Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included, though editors should be aware of creating undue bias to any specific point-of-view" in CRYSTAL, and its inclusion in the title (even those you suggest) and prominance in the article means that it goes on to violate those specific points. But I think if the article were to be renamed something on the lines on Proposed Conwall-Devon UK Parliament constituency and "Devonwall" was not given prominance (e.g. not being the first sentence in the article), there would be less to object to. Although with regards to your examples of other "proposed" articles I notice that nearly all of them (which were not redirects) were about something where a plan was in place or a specific proposal was made. At the moment the plan is the boundary review; a Cornwall-Devon constituency is just a possible, extrapolated, by-product. Zangar (talk) 17:33, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for both those comments - hope you won't object to some bullets in response :)
- I admit that my feelings are with Zangar on this one. For the benefit of non-UK readers of this I should explain that the boundaries of Parliamentary constituencies are to be altered so that each contains approximately the same number of people. These boundaries are reviewed regularly by the Boundary Commission anhd there are almost always arguments over boundaries. They will be more acute this time because the Boundary Commissions will be under a much stricter to equalise size. Since the voting population of Cornwall is not exactly divisible by the 75,000 or so that will be the new average it is almost inevitable that there will be one constituency that will straddle the boundary between Cornwall and Devon. But we will not know until the proposals are announced in the autumn. Yes, there is local opposition to the possibility, and as with all these things there is a party political interest both because it could affect the electoral outcome locally and because equalising constituencies is seen as benefitting the Conservative Party nationally. Against all that, we can be sure the new constituency will not be called Devonwall (the two counties are not to be combined, just a few thousand obliged to share an MP), and until the proposals are published people will not know where it is to be. Wikipedia is not really the place for recording local campaigns of this sort especially if it can be dealt with in the main article on a topic. However, if a neutral point of view can be maintained (which requires explaining the case in favour of change and why it may be difficult to achieve equalisation without a cross boundary solution) I would not be totally opposed to its staying pending merger into an article about the new constiuenc(y/ies). --AJHingston (talk) 14:22, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep the article in its present form with revised title.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 09:11, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If this is your revised opinion, Felix, you ought to
strikeyour previous "delete" above, for clarity. —SMALLJIM 20:38, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If this is your revised opinion, Felix, you ought to
- keep till confirmed in the meantime proposed is relevant.Lihaas (talk) 01:20, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Sixth Periodic Review of Westminster constituencies, probably as its own section or sub-section. Now that I know this article exists, this looks like the best home for all the controversy about the redrawn boundaries (Devonwall certainly won't be the only one).Whatever the outcome, "Devonwall" isn't a good name for the article as there's no chance any constituency will be called that (although I've no objection to a redirect). Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 19:00, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Baseball Watcher 00:13, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - per Lihaas.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:29, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.