Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Irish emergency budget, 2009


 * 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   keep. causa sui (talk) 18:22, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Irish emergency budget, 2009

 * – ( 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  17:24, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Possible Merge? is there a page we can merge this with? silly billypiggy ''¡SIGN NOW OR ELSE! 17:26, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The answer is no. --86.40.106.131 (talk) 18:48, 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) 18:18, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * It was an emergency budget. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.106.131 (talk) 18:41, 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)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 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 On the one hand, this budget was unique and notable. On the other hand, a list for every Irish budget is probably not the direction we want to go in. I'm leaning keep, with the provision that this doesn't necessarily justify every Irish budget getting an article. Alternatively, there could be one Irish budget article, as suggested by Snappy above. Nwlaw63 (talk) 19:57, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 2009 (emergency delivery), 2010 (famous use of unparliamentary language), 2011 ("most draconian in history") and 2012 (A National Address By An Taoiseach Enda Kenny, TD) are at least exceptional enough for their own page. Maybe others are not but then they don't exist. It's just that all the recent ones have been fairly exceptional and their pages show how they were exceptional, so how did they end up being nominated for deletion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.106.131 (talk) 20:57, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - National budgets are very notable events because they are widely followed and reported. It may not be everyone's bed time reading, but I don't see why the article needs to be merged - a merged article would be very unwieldly! Sionk (talk) 20:26, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * A merged article would grow even more unwieldy as time passes and more are added. If people are not interested in them, let them do something else. I oppose merging. — O'Dea  (talk) 07:08, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose - National budgets are notable economic events in any country at any time. The economy is a key driver of the life of a nation and shapes its history profoundly. The budget is one of the most notable elements in an economy. A national budget is important by definition. It is considerably more notable than any restaurant, about which the nominator writes frequently in Wikipedia. — O'Dea  (talk) 07:04, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge to Irish budget, 2010 or similar. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:13, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep on the same basis as the 2012 article. Importance does not decline for non-current events. An annual national budget of any large country will always have sufficient coverage to meet the guidelines.  DGG ( talk ) 10:46, 13 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.