Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ceremonial county of Durham


 * 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 d e lete. east. 718 at 02:00, November 27, 2007

Ceremonial county of Durham

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Content forking and breach of WP:PLACE. Result of edit warring. Possible breach of WP:POINT. All content should, per policy be within one County Durham article. -- Jza84 · (talk) 02:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons:


 * Super Extra Strong Delete - All these articles need to be deleted. Not notable for articles, anything contained in them worth keeping should go onto the County Durham article within the history section as the traditional county was destroyed a long time ago. └ and-rew ┘┌ talk ┐ 03:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete, or at least redirect to County Durham. This is content forking to make a WP:POINT.  While the entities described by each article title do (or did) exist in one shape or other, the subtle distinctions between each are best explained in a single article, not split across five.  --RFBailey (talk) 03:24, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom -- ¿Amar៛ Talk to me / My edits 04:22, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirect All: To County Durham. What's the point of these?  A question about Non-metropolitan county of Durham though, it already was a redirect yet you AfD'd it.  I'm not sure why you did that, but for future reference, use WP:RFD instead, as AfD'ing a redirect is not proper. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: strictly speaking, redirects should be listed at RfD, but that would have created two discussions on what is essentially the same topic. As three articles and one redirect were nominated, AfD is the right place.  --RFBailey (talk) 05:30, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Well, I would have did the RfD anyways. Even if this discussion concluded first, that would then make the redirect speedy-deletable per R1.  I guess this is WP:IAR? - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:39, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply: it wouldn't make it speedy-able, because the target article (County Durham) is not one of those up for deletion. But I agree this is a case of WP:IAR.  --RFBailey (talk) 15:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete all as unnecessary forks. The equivalent of a separate article for each of the original 13 American colonies, just because they had land claims beyond the Appalachians that they gave up. --Dhartung | Talk 05:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirect or delete all, not fussed, but unnecessary content forks.--h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 06:27, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete this is simply POV forking by the "traditional counties" mob. Guy (Help!) 07:43, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Extremely Strong Delete These forks are unnecessary and will be confusing to ordinary readers who are not immersed in some kind of POV pushing.  DDStretch    (talk)  17:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep until more explanation provided. What is the edit war and why is the County Durham article the best place for all this?  FWIW, I was born in this area myself and so have a special interest in this.  And what about Cleveland and any other overlapping areas?  I'm suspicious of the extravagant hyperbole above and suppose that one or more sides in the edit war are at work here.  Colonel Warden (talk) 18:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment: The edit war in question is that on the County Durham article. It arises from the (unanswerable) question as to whether "historic" County Durham (i.e. including Gateshead, Sunderland, etc.), "non-metropolitan" Durham (the area covered by the modern-day Durham County Council), "ceremonial" Durham, etc. are totally separate entities or not.  Regardless of one's opinions on the topic, it is totally unhelpful to have information spread across four or five separate articles, making it difficult for an uninformed reader to put it into context, and also suggests a single "correct" (in somebody's opinion) definition of "County Durham".  Of course, there should be an article on County Durham, as there should be on Northumberland, Cleveland, Tyne and Wear and Westmorland.


 * The presence on Wikipedia of a small number of noisy "traditional counties" enthusiasts (i.e. people who believe that Westmorland still exists, etc. etc.) in the past caused a huge amount of edit-warring, POV-pushing and other disruption, and as a result arouses very strong passions. This is the source of the "hyperbole" you were referring to.


 * Does that help? --RFBailey (talk) 19:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, thank you. On reflection, I'm now a Strong Keep.  The deletion argument is based primarily upon WP:PLACE but I'm not seeing anything there which prevents having articles on notable historic regions in their appropriate context.  For example, we have separate articles on London, City of London, Greater London, County of London and more.  Separate articles which explain the details, boundaries and history of each of these concepts seem fine.  Forcing them all together into one article would tend to cause confusion rather than clarity and lead to warring over the true name of the entity, as has happened here.  There's room and reason enough for all.  Colonel Warden (talk) 09:38, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I think London is a false analogy here. The latter three "Londons" are all well-defined entities, each of which is quite different, and also has enough content to make a full article.  The same can't be said of, say, "Ceremenonial county of Durham" and "Non-metropolitan county of Durham", or (worse) "Traditional county of Durham" and "Administrative county of Durham" which are pretty much identical.  There's just not enough content here to justify the separate articles, and besides that they are so intertwined that they should be explained all in one place.  --RFBailey (talk) 06:56, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I take your point FR Bailey about the non-metropolitan county and ceremonial county, and the traditiomnal and adminsitrative counties covering a similar area but fundamentally it is wrong to say they are the same. In any case, Tyne and Wear, Cleveland, and even Yorkshire (a big area of the non-met county of Durham came from administrative county of Yorkshire, North Riding) are all intertwined. We should acknowledge this as it is by having a seperate article that is linked to the non-met and met counties. Logoistic (talk) 15:15, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone is saying that they are exactly the same, but given that they are extremely similar, it is more useful to have a single article which can focus on the common ground and draw out the small differences. Warofdreams talk 16:20, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Whether they are "extremely similar" is irrelvent (and in any case they are not really: large swathes of the admin county went into Tyne and Wear and Cleveland and a very large section of Yorkshire approximating nearly 100,000 acres went into the non-met county of Durham). The point is to be accurate, not second guessing what is more "useful" and misleading readers in the process. Logoistic (talk) 17:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course it's relevant that they are extremely similar, and all have the same common name ("County Durham"). Having one article doesn't preclude accuracy.  --RFBailey (talk) 17:52, 23 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete all (or redirect any which might ever be linked to, to point to County Durham). Some of the other entities are ill-defined, others well defined, but there is so much overlap that the differences are best explained in the County Durham article. Warofdreams talk 03:05, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep until this is debated as per my post here. My main concern is having a seperate adminsitrative county article since the non-metropolitan county of Durham is not the same as the adminsitrative county of Durham. The adminsitrative county was split into several different entities (non-met county of Durham, non-met county of Cleveland, and met county of Tyne and Wear). It is not right to give the non-metropolitan county of Durham preferential treatment over the adminsitrative county of Durham's history as all of these met/non met county areas had part of their area in it. The best solution would be a seperate article.
 * To the point about seperate articles confusing users: Naming conventions (places) makes it clear that the article on "County Durham" is to mean the non-metropolitan county. It is surely more confusing to start conflating the administrative county of Durham with the non-metropolitan county of Durham. If the truth is confusing then so be it: we can't start compensating for that.
 * As a side point, I think some of the eitquette used here needs improving here. I am not a "tradional counties enthusiast" but an entusiast for the truth: there are no 'sides' here. I think you will find me reasonable if you adress my arguments and engage with me. I really can't be arsed with Wikipedia fighting: I've seen too many burn outs and lack of progress for that. Logoistic (talk) 15:07, 23 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Breach of AfD guidelines The original nominator for the discussion (User:Jza84) has breached guidelines about articles for deletion, sepecifically: "Do not message editors about AfD nominations because they support your view on the topic." The user sent a clearly biased message to several editors about "still a flat earth" (see here, here, here). When Bailey says that he might retire from Wiki Jza84 then says "don't retire! If you do who's going to help tell the world that their planet isn't flat?" (see here). Clearly Colonel Warden was right to be suspicious about the hyperbole: the AfD has been stacked. I am disgusted. Logoistic (talk) 15:42, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * What?!? "[...] Bailey says that he might retire[...]"?  I don't recall saying such a thing!  What are you talking about?  --RFBailey (talk) 17:52, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You still haven't answered this. --RFBailey (talk) 17:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment: Yes I brought this to the attention of some users I am aware of that are involved with British geography per your own request . Regardless, this still doesn't nulify the pre-existing consensus or policy, or non-negotiable fundamental policies on verifiability or citing sources. -- Jza84 · (talk) 15:56, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That statement was written before you even nominated the article for deletion. It was referring to the dicussion we were having on the talk page, not to vote in an AfD (which didn't even exist). I am not sure what you mean by citing sources: what do you doubt about the articles? That the administrative county of Durham existed? It is not up to me to proove that the non-metropolitan county of Durham is not a direct continuation of the adminsitrative county, it is up to you to proove that it is (and therefore that Tyne and Wear and Cleveland are not), and I don't think you can (which is exactly my point!). Logoistic (talk) 16:12, 23 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment: I have no further intention of dragging this out any further (it is clear a consensus and policy exist), and as such this is the last time I shall respond here as I can't continue to repeat myself. However, full citation is found at County Durham - it's there will all the details of authors and isbn's as a courtesy for you to go and verify. Policy, community, convention, consensus and citation - all as one - all supporting each other. -- Jza84 · (talk) 16:25, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, but your citations are to show that it is of "historic origin". I don't doubt that, but those sources don't say that the adminsitrative county and the non-metropolitan county are the same! They don't say that the non-metropolitan county of Durham is the sole embodied continuation of the administration county of Durham! Tyne and Wear and Cleveland are too, and we should not treat them as if they have been "cut off" from County Durham by having a history of the administative county exclusively in the non-metropolitan county of Durham article: they are just simply not in the non-metropolitan county of Durham, and that is it! I hope someone understands what I am trying to say here!!!!!!!! Logoistic (talk) 16:34, 23 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Please cite your sources as to why. We do not accept individual users as authorities on geography. You should (must) be reporting back on reliable source material rather than providing original research. -- Jza84 · (talk) 16:39, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * My point is that there is nothing to say that the non-metropolitan county of Durham is the sole embodied continuation of the administration county of Durham. It is up to you to proove that it is, not me to proove that it isn't!!! You get me now?? Logoistic (talk) 16:46, 23 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm finding it hard to engage with you, and even assume good faith from hereon. I want to ask an explicit question - are you trolling? I really don't know if you're trying to mock and undermine what going on here or if it's just your character to persist in such matters; citation has been provided in full in the article (which you can verify) and there's an overwhelming consensus above and a policy that exists that asserts your ideas are not helpful in furthering Wikipedia. Again, please, please, cite your sources, as I have done. You're in an absolute minority here and your ideas would be better served and respected if you did this. Even if you provided them, you should respect the consensus that, however noble or un-noble, your ideas are unwanted and unhelpful. Thanks for understanding, -- Jza84 · (talk) 16:58, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You obviously don't get what I am trying to say, therefore I will leave it to others to understand it. Please assume good faith: just because you don't understand what I am trying to say does not mean that I am trolling. Logoistic (talk) 17:05, 23 November 2007 (UTC)


 * (un-indent) Look, I understand that each of the titles nominated has a different meaning, the problem is that there's no need to have separate articles on all of them. It should be about all of them.  The following is a quote from Naming conventions (places):
 * Articles about counties should not be split up and should not be disambiguation pages. They should treat the counties as one entity which has changed its boundaries with time.
 * This appears to me to be the relevant piece of policy here. The County Durham article isn't (or shouldn't be) just about one definition, it should be about all of them.  If it has more content relevant to the non-metropolitan county, then that's because that is the present-day administrative area, so is probably the primary usage of the term, and thus has more relevance to people.  --RFBailey (talk) 17:52, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * But "changed its boundaries with time" is false: the administrative county of Durham is not the same as the non-metropolitan county of Durham. No matter what popular imagination says (and I know a lot of organisations and people think like that), the administrative county of Durham did not "shrink" to form the non-metropolitan county of Durham, it was abolished and three new entities formed in its place. The policy is wrong, that's why I challenged it here. I am perfectly willing to put in a section about how some people and organisations see the non-metropolitan as the sole, direct continuation of the administrative county of Durham (such as Durham County Council - I can give you lots of documents that claim this), but on the condition that it is made clear that this is how they perceive it, yet actual legislation simply abolished one area and set up three others in its place. Logoistic (talk) 13:55, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Question: (and edit conflict) For those who wish to see the separate articles remain, I have a question for them to answer. As a preamble: Looking at the different articles as they now stand, some are certainly of stub status, and one is empty. These would certainly be candidates for merger with other articles or deletion as they now stand, and also for the additional reason (apparently conceded by Logoistic) that they are greatly intertwined with the entities the other articles are about. Now, let us assume that the present County Durham article is the primary one. My question is: what information is it envisaged that each of the other articles would contain, if kept and developed, that would be specific to each of those articles? In other words, removing all the duplicated information in one article that can be found in another (with County Durham remaining a primary one), how much would remain in each of the articles? Note that this is a hypothetical question, since I was always under the impression that one added to an article until it became so unwieldy that one considered a split into two or more articles, and what has been done here, on the basis of what is currently in each article, seems to be the reverse situation: split the articles first and then try to put information in them, which, so far, seems not to have happened. DDStretch   (talk)  17:58, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply: First and foremost, it is factually inaccurate to conflate the non-metropolitan county of Durham with the administrative county of Durham: this is the most important point. They are two seperate entities, the former of which was broken up into 3 new entities, the latter of which was merely one such entity. Secondly, there would be no need for duplicate information: the "County Durham" article is supposed to deal with the non-metropolitan county of Durham, which can then link to the administrative county of Durham (and the same for Cleveland and Tyne and Wear articles), and so each would define their specific entity. Thirdly, the actual County Durham article as I had it (check before Jza84's changes) removed little information from it, whilst the administrative county of Durham article could be expanded by users. Principally though, we should not merge the articles because the "County Durham" article is supposed to be about the non-metropolitan county of Durham (as per Naming conventions (places): "We should use the current, administrative [meaning non-metropolitan], county"), and this county is not the 'shrunken' form of the administrative county of Durham.Logoistic (talk) 13:55, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge all to County Durham. Is there really so much that can be said about different minimal variations on the same thing that cant be said in a single article? Having numerous articles on a very similar thing is confusing to the uninformed reader, who will struggle to understand how things stated in one article may or may not relate to the other or worse not realise the existence of a more relevant article (whilst serves no purpose to the informed reader as they already know), secondly it encourages replication of material.  Both of which are bad things. Pit-yacker (talk) 00:36, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I fundamentally disagree with introducing innaccuracy because some people might be confused. On the contrary, we should present the facts as they are. Logoistic (talk) 13:55, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * There is no need to introduce inaccuracy. All of this could go in a single article.  Having one article and accuracy are not mutually exclusive.  Indeed, in the broader scheme, the replication that multiple articles will create means that a single article will on the whole be more accurate as there is only one article where any mistakes need to be corrected rather than five.  In my experience of Wikipedia replication leads to inaccuracy as most editors will not realise the existence of (or can not be bothered to trawl the encyclopedia for) other articles where the same error occurs. Pit-yacker (talk) 14:03, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Proposed solution: I have proposed at least a partial solution here. Logoistic (talk) 14:53, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * For the nth time, nobody is remotely suggesting that the differences should not be explained, merely that they should be explained in a single article. Given your proposal, Administrative county of X would have to contain the same explanation as Non-metropolitan county of X and Ceremonial county of X.  Having it spread across three (or more) articles would make it harder to contain a consistent explanation (they might do to begin with, but not after people have edited them), and therefore would be counter-productive.  And I disagree with your assertion that modern-day County Durham is not the natural successor to the historical county that has been in existence for centuries--that really is a fringe point-of-view.  (Are you seriously suggesting that, say, Bishop Auckland is in a different county now from what it was in 1750?  "Popular imagination" seems to be used to mean "the vast majority of the people, who all disagree with me".)  While a technicality of 1970s local government legislation may have abolished one entity and replaced it with another (with the same name), that simply amounts to changing its boundaries.  This isn't "covering up the truth", it's the reality of the situation.


 * Finally the quote from the naming conventions which says that We should use the current, administrative, county is primarily referring to which county we should use to describe where places are (e.g. the article on Gateshead should describe it first and foremost as being in Tyne and Wear) as a geographical reference. It is not saying that the "county" articles should only be about the current entity with no mention of its pre-1974 history. --RFBailey (talk) 16:44, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Firstly, it is obvious that Bishop Auckland is in a different county: the LGA 1972 is not a "technicality" and you cannot plaster over the facts of this legislation because you think the non-metropolitan county of Durham is the "natural successor" to the administrative county of Durham. Present the facts as they are: legislation is in no way a "fringe point-of-view" but the primary source that created and abolished the entities we are discussing. Bishop Auckland both belong to county entities that both contained the term "Durham", but it doesn't mean they were the same and Wikipedia should not be misleading people about this. I have already said we can include the views of those who do see it as a "natural successor" (with references), and I know certain organisations and people perceive it like this (but this doesn't mean the "vast majority of people"). Unless you survey a representitive sample of the population of County Durham (however you want to define it) I won't be taking your opinion on that one. Logoistic (talk) 15:15, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The proposed solution given by Logoistic introduces an inaccuracy that isn't otherwise present if one does not introduce his new breach of the naming conventions. The form of words used in his proposed solution suggests that Tyne and Wear got only parts of former non-metropolitan county of Durham, and nothing else, when in fact, it got others pieces of land from Northumberland and so on. If one attempts to take the solution offered to its logical conclusion, and keeps with his basic idea, one would have to have separate articles for, say, Congleton (a) before it was made an Urban District, (b) for when it was an unparished area, and finally, (c) for when it was created a civil parish again. This would be replicated all over the UK at civil parish, borough, council district and county levels. At least if Logoistic is serious about this matter, I would expect him to admit that this would be what is required. However, that way leads to madness.  DDStretch    (talk)  17:26, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Not a problem on the first point, instead of saying "the legislation divided the adminsitrative county of Durham into 3 new non-metropolitan and metropolitan counties (Cleveland, Durham, and Tyne and Wear)", we simply replace the word "into" by "among", thus "the legislation divided the adminsitrative county of Durham among 3 new non-metropolitan and metropolitan counties (Cleveland, Durham, and Tyne and Wear)". This does not suggest that Cleveland, Durham, or Tyne and Wear consisted of purely of land from the administrative county of Durham. On the second point, the level of significance of entities below county level is lower than the county level significance. If it was felt that there is a history to talk about for previous entities (as evidently there is in the case of administrative counties - hence why the administrative county of Durham gets a run through in the County Durham (i.e. "non-metropolitan county") article) then there is no reason not to have a seperate article. If it is not significant then the article can say that Congleton belonged to entity X until X time and leave it at that. Note that this is in contrast the way some users are portraying certain non-metropolitan counties as the "natural successor" to the administrative county. I believe the administrative county of Durham article could contain the historical county history, thus making the article significant. I see your point about significance though. Logoistic (talk) 15:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Strong delete. We had all of this before a few years ago, somebody else went around spliiing up county articles such as Warwickshire. And after a long debate it was clearly decided a long time ago that splitting up county articles was unnaceptable. G-Man ? 18:54, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, that discussion debates whether the traditional counties should be used as the current day referrent in Wikipedia articles. Please read my arguments. I am not arguing that the historical counties should be used as a modern day referrent, and I don't really mind whether seperate historical county articles remain: just that to conflate an adminsitrative county with the non-metropolitan county is a no-goer. When the adminsitrative county was split it is pure opinion whether one entity is seen as a "natural successor" - the legislation made no statement about this. We can say who considers it a natural successor (e.g. Durham County Council) but we must state facts as they are: the adminsitrative county was abolished (nothing about an entity's boundaries being "changed") and distributed among three other entities. Simple as that. Btw, I am going to be away until Friday so excuse any delay in replying! Logoistic (talk) 15:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Under the provisions of the 1972 Act, all pre-existing local government structure was abolished and replaced. So let's take another example, Cornwall.  Following Logoistic's logic, the then-existing administrative county of Cornwall was abolished and replaced by a new non-metropolitan county of Cornwall.  This had exactly the same boundaries as its predecessor .  Should we have separate articles on each of those?  Surely not doing that would be "conflating" too?


 * As I and others have said repeatedly, having a single article should not preclude accurately describing the effect of legislation. It is far less confusing to readers this way.  --RFBailey (talk) 17:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Given that both entities have the same name, cover much of the same area, and have both been administered by a body called Durham County Council, legal technicallities aside, common sense would suggest that the current non-met county was in practice a continuation of the previous admin county but with different boundaries. G-Man  ? 23:28, 26 November 2007 (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.