Talk:Affirmative Action: A Case Study in Northern Ireland

Contested deletion
This article should not be speedy deleted as being recently created, having no relevant page history and duplicating an existing English Wikipedia topic, because... (it is the subject of a university assessment and relies on credible sources, it further adds to the page Affirmative Action under the UK discussion by explaining the example of affirmative action measures in the recruitment of NI policing ) --Charlotte Lavery (talk) 21:25, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * University project or no, reliable sources or no, the article duplicates the topic already covered at Independent Commission on Policing for Northern Ireland. Creating a second article on a topic that already exists is considered a content fork and is highly discouraged as it leads to higer maintenance efforts and to POV-pushing. If you need to have the content of the article assessed for a grade, create it within your own user space. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 21:30, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

This article provides awareness from the Northern Irish perspective, significantly differing the static information given by way of the article you have quoted. Whilst I understand the likeness you are referring to, I do not believe it is a complete duplication of information. Additionally, the Independent Commission on Policing for Northern Ireland article does not link to the Affirmative Action page? This is significant in how my article is different. I am looking at the Patten Report or as otherwise states: Independent Commission on Policing, through the lens of anti-discrimination law. --Charlotte Lavery (talk), 3 November 2014 (UTC)


 * If the existing article is insufficient, improve it. But don't create an entirely new one just because you don't like the existing one. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 22:05, 3 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't wish to improve the other as it would take away from the meaning of it. The meaning of my article is to link the subject matter to affirmative action not recite the Patten Report! I am new to this whole wikipedia upload thing, is there not another way to redirect my article or change the name so as this confusion will not remain? Please advise. This is part of a group assessment and I do not wish for it to be deleted before my Lecture can even read it! --Charlotte Lavery (talk), 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You don't have to recite the Patten Report. If you believe that is all that the existing article does, improve it. But that article has a history that predates yours, and Wikipedia does not tolerate two articles on the same topic, especially for the purposes of putting forth your own point of view on the matter. There's really no room for discussion on that point. As for your grade, you can copy the text of your article to your own user space if you need your instructor to assess it, but Wikipedia doesn't exist in order for you to get good grades in school. All articles must meet guidelines, and this one does not. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 22:27, 3 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I find this deeply confusing. If I place the article on my own user space, it is not linked to the other pages I would ideally like them to be linked to? I do not expect Wikipedia to exist for the benefit of my academic credit. I wish to also point out that this article does not put forward a bias but represents a very real issue within Northern Ireland and has treated such with sensitivity. Charlotte Lavery (talk) 22:34, 3 November 2014 (UTC)


 * At this point, I have no more to say. You've said your bit; I've said mine. We'll have to let the reviewing administrator decide. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 22:35, 3 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the advice, you're clearly an expert and have no time for new timers on this site. I'm sorry to see that new content is to be put down so easily by editors of wikipedia.


 * This isn't a question of no time. I've offered you the advice I have, but you don't seem willing to accept it. There's nothing I can do about that. You worked hard on an article and you really want it to stay, but despite all of your hard work, it doesn't meet our criteria. That's a shame, but your hard work doesn't have to be for nothing. You have the material, you just need to put it in the right place: at the existing article on Independent Commission on Policing for Northern Ireland. Your problem appears to be that that article doesn't link to the affirmative action article. So, link them. Or that the existing article doesn't have the tone that you want to convey. So, edit it to have the proper tone (but without pushing any particular point of view, please). Take my advice or don't, but don't blame me if you choose not to. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 22:51, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Contested deletion
This article should not be speedy deleted as being recently created, having no relevant page history and duplicating an existing English Wikipedia topic. The article is informative beyond the page for the Independent Commission on Policing for Northern Ireland which lists the Patten report measures with a brief synopsis of its effects. There are gaps in this information. The contested article particularly highlights the extremity of the 50:50 measure in the backdrop of the existing 1976/1989 affirmative action plans within the NI context. The measure's perceived success has been the envy of police forces elsewhere (as quoted from the article where it states the example of the Metropolitan Police). For these reasons, I believe this is a topical issue which ought to be publicly disseminated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.17.246.10 (talk) 23:14, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I would suggest that if dan believes this article is a duplicate of the article on the Patten report he must have little or no understanding of the topic. It is clear to anyone who has studied this area that an article linked to affirmative action on the specific 50/50 measure within the Patten report is an independent discrete topic. Suggesting otherwise is akin to saying that an article about the American bill of rights duplicates an article on gun control, which is one narrow contested issue within the bill of rights. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.14.82.105 (talk) 23:50, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Likely sock puppetry aside, I'll again leave the matter to the reviewing administrator whether or not to retain the article based on the cited criterion. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 05:13, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I am personally offended that you are accusing me of participating in 'sock puppetry'. Making unsubstantiated claims like this is irrelevant to the issue at hand and merely serve to make you look petty. Does it not occur to you that other people clicking the link to this article find your attitude rude & condescending, and your claims completely unsubstantiated? This is not a question of 'sock puppetry' it is a question of you being unable to see that you are incorrect and this is recognised by multiple people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.14.82.105 (talk) 15:25, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Merge proposal
I had originally tagged this article for deletion under WP:CSD as largely duplicating the content of Independent Commission on Policing for Northern Ireland. That tag was declined by a reviewing administrator since this article contains more extensive information. A merge was suggested instead, so I am here to open the discussion of said merge.

The merge target is the article about the specific set of events in question: the problem of representation of the main religious factions within the police force of Northern Ireland and the resolution of that issue based on a formula that does not follow normal affirmative action goals (namely the proportional representation of the general population within the police force). The current article examines the facts of that set of events in more detail than the original article, but the merge target should be the original article for two reasons: This is an encyclopedia, not a text book: case studies are not part of the equation. Removing that part of the title, we'd be left with Affirmative Action in Northern Ireland, which would somewhat violate the global point of view that Wikipedia is trying to uphold. Also, the article does not cover all aspects of affirmative action in Northern Ireland; it only covers one specific example of an affirmative action program, a program that is already described at Independent Commission on Policing for Northern Ireland. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:46, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) it has a longer history;
 * 2) the title of this article doesn't really fly with Wikipedia naming conventions.

This seems somewhat more reasonable. I feel that you owe an apology to Charlotte and the other posters for your rudeness and condescension, particularly given you have now been proved wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.14.82.105 (talk) 21:57, 4 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I haven't been "proven wrong". A discussion was held and the administrator who reviewed the article and the discussion chose not to agree with my opinion. That's how we do here at Wikipedia. I won't apologize for taking the action I felt was proper, whether or not that action becomes consensus in the end. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 22:00, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

If you read what I said, I stated you should apologise for your rudeness, as you were extremely disrespectful, not because you took action. There is a difference between doing what you feel is your professional duty and being rude. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.14.82.105 (talk) 22:09, 4 November 2014 (UTC)


 * There is no need to apologise, just perhaps be careful talking to other users as you tone can appear a little condescending and arrogant. I'm sure neither of which are qualities you were actively pursuing last night. Thank you for the information. I concede that the title is perhaps not a standard wikipedia format. What might you suggest if we are not to use "Affirmative Action in NI" and how might we go about linking it properly? Charlotte Lavery (talk) 23:27, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I suggest (as this merge proposal affirms) that the material in this article be included as appropriate in Independent Commission on Policing for Northern Ireland. This article title would then be deleted. You can add Wikilinks as you like to create links between your material and affirmative action in general. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 00:41, 5 November 2014 (UTC)


 * How do I delete the original article title? As advised, the new location: Independent Commission on Policing for Northern Ireland. Will these current amendments do? Charlotte Lavery (talk) 21:56, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * No, the current amendments to Independent Commission on Policing for Northern Ireland won't really do. You've simply tacked this article in its entirety to the end of that article, with no attempt to merge the content in a meaningful and organized fashion. We'll need to work on integrating your information more fully into the narrative flow. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 02:22, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * With the merge completed (and then correted), the need for this article has vanished. It has been redirected. The talk page is retained for history purposes. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 21:05, 6 January 2015 (UTC)