Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Belfast East (Dáil constituency)


 * 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 Merge into related articles. As per the discussion.  Sandstein  16:50, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Belfast East (Dáil constituency)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Should there be separate pages for this and similar pages? They are the only pages that are doubled up in this way of all constituencies in Northern Ireland used for the Second Dáil, or even of constituencies in the future state of Ireland where UK constituencies served as constituencies for the First Dáil. Instead, I would propose adding a note or paragraph to each of Belfast East (Northern Ireland Parliament constituency), etc., to indicate that were considered to be constituencies in the Second Dáil. --Iveagh Gardens (talk) 21:06, 12 January 2019 (UTC) The other pages I am nominating are:


 * Merge into an article titled something like Dáil constituencies in Northern Ireland. I don't see there being much benefit to having articles on constituencies that were used for a single election. The same would go for all of those which have been recently created for the 1917 elections in Russia, which I have been considering nominating for deletion too. Number   5  7  15:01, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * what are your views on this? —Iveagh Gardens (talk) 11:46, 18 January 2019 (UTC)


 * My preference would still be to delete these, as the proposed Dáil constituencies in Northern Ireland could probably be better addressed with a line in one of the pages like 1918 Irish general election and 1921 Irish elections, given that these were constituencies created for the House of Commons of the United Kingdom and House of Commons of Northern Ireland respectively. --Iveagh Gardens (talk) 12:43, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~   {talk}  13:41, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —Iveagh Gardens (talk) 10:40, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &#8213; Matthew J. Long -Talk-☖  21:03, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Merge and Redirect to the respective NI Parliament articles. Scolaire (talk) 13:45, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Redirect Largely the same as Scolaire. Mention in the article on Second Dáil and redirect the articles to the relevant NI parliament articles. Valenciano (talk) 16:28, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I've added a section on the Second Dáil to each of the 11 constituencies in the Northern Ireland Parliament in 1921. That should hopefully satisfy the Merge proposal. If agreed then, we can now Redirect the articles proposed for deletion. —Iveagh Gardens (talk) 20:06, 20 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Merge Per above, one-time existence does not mean there must be a separate article for it. Reywas92Talk 20:56, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Merge all. All are thin on prose, there is little commentary, and they would fit together well.  This was never a deletion proposal, there is no case for deleting any.  There are nearly no editor comments on any of the talks pages, one exception being User:PatGallacher's sole post "This looks like an artificial article which should not be a separate article from Belfast North (Northern Ireland Parliament constituency). PatGallacher (talk) 00:10, 15 November 2010 (UTC)".  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:59, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * After what I hope have been constructive edits elsewhere, specifically to the pages for the 9 Belfast constituencies in 1918 (Belfast Woodvale (UK Parliament constituency), etc.), there are now no links on any articles across Wikipedia to any of the pages I proposed above for deletion. I'd make the case then for deletion, but have no fundamental objection to a redirect. —Iveagh Gardens (talk) 12:19, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I think the information on these pages should continue on a merged page. For attribution reasons, this means merge and redirect, do not delete.  —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:03, 23 February 2019 (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.