Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Irish budget, 2012


 * 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   WP:SNOW since only the nominator supports deletion. Clearly no consensus. This is not a meaningful discussion at this point and it threatens to descend into name calling. Shii (tock) 11:03, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Irish budget, 2012

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Although this budget is a very severe one for the Irish people, this edition (nor any others) is important enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Night of the Big Wind talk  17:23, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Really??? A national budget is not important enough? Category:2012 budgets, Category:2011 budgets, etc, it's not only Ireland, it's Canada, Pakistan, India, Britain, Australia and even Oklahoma too. This one is delivered in two parts for the first time and was preceded by A National Address By An Taoiseach Enda Kenny, TD so it's a pretty landmark budget by any standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.106.131 (talk) 17:55, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * This budget hits me too, but it is still not notable in my opinion. Every budget is in fact the same: the big guys screw up, the little guys have to pay. Night of the Big Wind  talk  18:00, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That's your opinion on budgets. It is irrelevant to the topic's notability who or what it hits. The fact is, as stated above, it is pretty landmark. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.106.131 (talk) 18:11, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * These arguments appear to be WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Cusop Dingle (talk) 18:14, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Question Does the nominator seriously claim that this topic has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject?  Cusop Dingle (talk) 18:14, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Please note: The nominator was also blocked for disruption yesterday as evidenced from their talk page. Don't know how relevant that is but if they have been disruptive as recently as yesterday... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.106.131 (talk) 18:17, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Does that have any relevance to this case, my friend? Night of the Big Wind  talk  18:50, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Potentially. Being blocked for disruption and then returning to make this nomination the following day is questionable. Myabe it is just a coincidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.106.131 (talk) 19:09, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * There's no disruption here. Night is very active in AfD discussions so it's natural that he continues doing that after his block. If you have issues with him take them elsewhere, AfD is not the place for them. Move along, nothing to see here. SpeakFree (talk)(contribs) 19:38, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Very important and very notable event. Article has lots of reliable sources. Though all Irish budget articles could be merged into one article. Snappy (talk) 19:32, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I support the proposal to merge all these Irish budget articles into one, keeping the content. Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:00, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * But what would be the page title? Irish budgets from 2009 as far as 2012? Bit unwieldy. Irish budgets of the 2000s and 2010s? Not even in the same decade. Irish budgets of the Cowen and Kenny governments? And delivered by four different political parties. So they have nothing in common. Each is notable in its own way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.106.131 (talk) 21:17, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - Extremely notable event in terms of the coverage it receives in the press. I would have thought if the article is expanded properly to summarise the proposals it can remain as an article in its own right. Sionk (talk) 20:18, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - This editor has a strange idea of what is important. He deems a national budget unworthy of inclusion but fails to say why, but he creates articles about closed down Dutch restaurants, see L'Auberge (restaurant). Is he going to nominate all the other national budget articles too? Snappy (talk) 20:51, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, what is the relevance of this? We are talking about the Budget, not about a former restaurant with two Michelinstars. Stay the course, dude. Night of the Big Wind  talk  01:38, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * This is exactly what was meant by disruption. Trying to AGF on this but there are a few inconsistencies like that in the nominator's recent history and on their talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.106.131 (talk) 21:08, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It is already clear to me that you use WP:ABF. I have asked you before to remove the comments about the unrelated block, and I do it now again. Otherwise, feel the consequences. Night of the Big Wind  talk  01:38, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * What consequences? I am not the only one to think this nomination situation absurd. You want to create and keep closed-down Dutch restaurants and delete financial emergencies. Nothing against the restaurants at all (and they're irrelevant to the outcome of this nomination) but then your talk page shows you were blocked for disruption as recently as yesterday. And you've been removing categories from pages again and again. Once, fair enough, but it is quite hard to find good faith when you leave a 24-hour trail of devastation such as this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.106.131 (talk) 02:02, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Al articles are judged on their own merits. So there is no relation at all with any other article that is brought forward for judgement. Night of the Big Wind  talk  05:35, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It relates to your questionable recent behaviour. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.106.131 (talk) 06:05, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose - I created this article when I noticed that there were precedents for previous years, and with the 2012 budget imminent the following day, it was clear that it was time to prepare the Budget 2012 article. I have not had time yet to follow the details of the budget nor to expand the article, but this budget is of special and high national historical importance in Ireland, owing to the distress being experienced in the country and because this budget will be so powerfully historically determining. Anyone who cannot appreciate the importance of this budget just hasn't been following the news, and simply doesn't know what he is talking about. The nomination for deletion is ridiculous. In addition, there are other budget articles to be seen in Category:2011 budgets. Should they all be deleted? Are not national budgets of great importance during normal times, let alone during times of historical stress? This is self-evidently an absurd deletion nominaton. — O'Dea  (talk) 00:56, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I do not think so. This is in fact a case of WP:1E. After the initial storm laid down, people just go on. Accepting what is coming done upon them because they can't change it. Night of the Big Wind  talk  05:35, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Not everybody "just goes on". But even if they did go on what relevance does people going on or not going on have to the notability of national budgets? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.106.131 (talk) 06:08, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep: requesting WP:SNOW This is a very silly nomination considering the coverage this issue has got. If anyone else thinks this is ridiculous, please close this nomination. I would do it myself but nobody has specifically asked for it to be closed yet. Shii (tock) 01:40, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I would do it too but I've already nearly been banned twice today for correcting grammar and sorting categories. What a ridiculous and contradictory website this is sometimes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.106.131 (talk) 02:07, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know anything about requesting of nomination closure but if it will help to send this silliness away, I hereby request closure. — O'Dea  (talk) 03:58, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't think it is a good idea, just because you think it is a silly nomination. The option of merging the individual budget articles looks a great option to me. Night of the Big Wind  talk  05:35, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * But you said this budget is not "important enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia"; you say, it is "not notable in my opinion"; and "every budget is in fact the same". You make it difficult to take you seriously when you argue that budget articles are all the same and should not be in Wikipedia, and then contradict yourself by saying they should be kept and re-packaged as a group, as though lumping them together somehow compensated for their — according to you — individual unworthiness. — O'Dea  (talk) 06:56, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Everybody apart from you thinks it is silly. Nobody can understand the paradox between your wish to have pages for closed down Dutch restaurants and no pages for national budgets. This is time wasting. You might find yourself described here under "Misuse of process". Quite a few of your edits in recent hours appear to match that description. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.106.131 (talk) 06:04, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That is in fact what you are doing, my friend. But pulling all sorts of personal comments and attacks in that have no relevance for this discussion. And it would be nice when you tone down your aggresive attitude a bit. Night of the Big Wind  talk  06:09, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not intending to be aggressive. I have tried to choose my words carefully. Just offering some friendly advice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.106.131 (talk) 06:11, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * As long as you leave those attacks on the nomination pages, no one will believe you or take your arguments serious. Aggression and attacks don't fit in a civilized discussion. Night of the Big Wind  talk  09:19, 7 December 2011 (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.