User:Wee Curry Monster/sandbox

Article was created as a stub and then the originator embarked on a massive MOS:OVERLINKING spree. This brought the article to the attention of editors prompting what to my mind was an obvious AfD candidate. Per that policy Everyday words understood by most readers in context shouldn't be linked. On the face of it, any article where the expression British possession is mentioned was linked and now the originator simply reverts any attempt to tidy the resulting mess up. After nomination for deletion, it was expanded rapidly in size (8,658 bytes to 52,633bytes) primarily by adding references to legislation with extensive quotations to bloat article size. Since the deletion discussion closed as "No consensus", editing stopped and, aside from minor copy editing, remains stagnant. The previous AfD did not conclude the article had merit, rather it put an end to what had been a rather bizarrely bad tempered discussion.

The article is a strange amalgam of WP:OR and WP:SYN trying to define what is a commonly used phrase applied loosely to various territories that were part of the British Empire but which of itself has no real meaning in encyclopedic terms. The article applies it inappropriately, for example, referring to Pitcairn Island having "British possession status"; there is no such status, rather it is a British Overseas Territory. British possession has never been an administrative division of the British Empire as claimed. The reference to "British possession" in that case is in context of 19th Century legislation. As a term it has no significance per WP:GEOLAND. As a common phrase it does not merit an article.

An attempt has been made to justify the article as the use of a legal term, which were it true I would acknowledge would just about make this relevant encyclopedic content. However, this is not the case notably lacking is secondary sources referring to its use as a legal term, the reliance is on WP:PRIMARY sources. Normally 60+ cites would be a good indicator of notability, however, many are google snippets where the term 'british possession' is mentioned. Approximately 50% are references to legislation, i.e. WP:PRIMARY sources, where the term is defined as an abbreviation. Use as an abbreviation in legislation doesn't confer notability; legislators define the term separately and differently in disparate pieces of legislation, demonstrating it was never a well-defined term with specific meaning. Hence, whilst many WP:PRIMARY sources may refer to British possessions it is difficult to see this article as anything but a dictionary stub and as such not notable, see also WP:DICDEF for relevant guidance. Bluntly, the use of a common phrase in legislation doesn't make it notable, since the only place it would have any meaning would be in an article on a piece of legislation or reference to that legislation. WP:NOT is relevant here; Wikipedia is not a dictionary, it is not an WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection of information. This article is nothing but an indiscriminate collection of legislation that simply mentions a common phrase.