Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inner Catalan border


 * 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   delete. Cirt (talk) 22:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Inner Catalan border

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

No such thing as the "Inner Catalan border" is known to Google books or scholar, or even to a general Google search if WP-derived content is excluded. Seems to be here simply to make a political point about how the "country" of Catalonia is split between France and Spain. Either way, we don't have an article about the broader France-Spain border, so it also seems odd to have one about this small portion of it. And even the alternative title of "Catalan frontier" appears to be more commonly used to refer to the past "external" borders between Catalan regions and/or French and Spanish territory as was. Nickhh (talk) 23:34, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. Per own nomination, and just to add some points. Obviously this stretch of the border exists in the real world, but the name being used for it, or the concept that it is somehow a special bit of the French-Spanish border that needs a page all to itself would appear to be rather blatant original research and motivated somewhat by the desire to make a political point, based possibly on the genuine term Inner German border. Talking about it being the border that divides "Northern" from "Southern Catalonia" merely highlights this point - in modern terms, Catalonia refers simply to the Spanish autononous region. It is not acknowledged, in English, as being a wider region that is divided into a north and south. Note this user created this page at about the same time that, among many other page moves, they unilaterally switched Ibiza to its Catalan name, despite the name being almost unheard of in English language use. --Nickhh (talk) 23:48, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. There is no evidence of notability. A web search failed to produce any use of this expression not copied from Wikipedia. This seems to be original research by an editor whose editing is entirely or almost entirely designed to plug the view of Catalonia as a country. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep, allow discussion, then likely a merge of content, keeping the redirect as a possible search term. The deletion rationale is OR and POV, and we should be careful not to confuse ourselves with notability. OR concerns are easily dismissed, as we have articles on Northern Catalonia and (the "southern" part) Catalonia - by inference there is a border, and yes, we probably could have an article on that border, created in 1659. The question is then if it is POV, is it a frontier or a border, and an "inner frontier" may not pass the smell test - nevertheless, POV is a bad deletion rationale, it's merely the title that's a problem, and per WP:ATD there are other options than reaching for the shotgun. The article on Northern Catalonia is not too long, and could easily have the info in the border article, as a section, I would assume. This is a merge discussion, which I would happily leave to the regulars of those two article. Perhaps we should also ask people at Roussillon to contribute to that discussion. This can take place outside the the 7-days Democles sword of AfD. Power.corrupts (talk) 12:42, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean when you say the deletion rationale is "OR" or "POV". Those are content policies. My observations also already included an acknowledgement that this bit of the border exists as part of the border between the modern Spanish region of Catalonia and France, and in turn as part of the wider Franco-Spanish border, but simply disputed that a thing known as the "Inner Catalan border" exists. As for the outcome here, merge/redirect is always an option as an AFD result, so I don't understand either your point here, or indeed your call for "Keep", when you could yourself have proposed "Merge". As it is, there is nothing much in this short article - other than odd suggestions that the "Principality of Catalonia" still exists - that is not already covered in articles such as Northern Catalonia, History of Catalonia, Treaty of the Pyrenees, Roussillon, Pyrénées-Orientales and the page on the historical Principality itself. That's why I put it up for outright deletion, since the only thing that this page adds to anything on WP is a made-up name. I'd argue strongly against a redirect of the name, as again that would constitute Wikipedia giving credibility to a phrase that appears not to exist in any serious source. Separately, if people want to add content from other language WPs to the equivalent pages here, that can of course be done even if this page is deleted. --Nickhh (talk) 15:04, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 14:21, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   A rbitrarily 0    ( talk ) 19:07, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - I also want to highlight that the Spanish project's article on es:Rosellón (Francia) has useful content on that border, seems bona fide, not POV. Power.corrupts (talk) 14:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete. Clear POV pushing from obscure sources. We don't normally have articles on borders, let alone for stretches of borders. Border between France and Spain or Pyrenees? Pcap ping  03:12, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions.  -- Pcap  ping  03:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions.  -- Pcap  ping  03:15, 16 February 2010 (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.