Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Irish property bubble


 * 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. - Bobet 13:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Irish property bubble
OR (WP:OR), bbs-style argumentation lists, not encyclopedic. group of articles. Yy-bo 14:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. It is in the interest of the property market bulls that this article is deleted, instead of edited.--User:anonymous 22:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. The bubble issue is worthwhile and the article - like so many - needs editing.--Mereda 07:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Just needs a clean up, the issue is much debated in Ireland, at present. This is not oringal research, as the issue is much reported in the Irish media and other publications. ant_ie 08:31, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Mereda and ant_ie. This topic is constantly on TV, radio and newspapers. Bláthnaid  09:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong delete As it stands, this does contain a lot of original research. If it is not to do so, it needs to be cleaned up by including references, as currently the article is full of "citation needed" with little or no real references (compare to main article Real estate bubble which includes many). The tone is also too much in an essay/OR style ("that raises the question...") It could also be argued that the article is very crystal ballish, as a bubble is as much defined by the "pop" as the growth beforehand, so a bubble can only be confirmed in hindsight. The article may be salavageable, if good references are found to say "sources A+B thinks it's a bubble because of reason X,Y and Z", although caution must be applied, as introducing new analysis that are not in the sources would be original research. This article currently contains quite a lot of this type of OR, for example, one of the references is the daft report saying that the yield is ~3%. The yield figure is cited information, yes, but implying that it a bearish argument is OR, as no such implication to that effect was contained in the source. If OR like this can be removed, and good references found, ensuring that the information used is cited correctly and not given a new synthysis, then it may be kept, but until those problems are addressed the article fails WP:V, WP:NOT and WP:NOR, all of which are valid grounds for deletion unless fixed. Regards, MartinRe 09:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Updating qualifier after further investigation. If this topic is worth keeping, there should be an excess of reliable sources to back this up instead of a multitude of fact tags. If by the end of the afd discusssion there are no sources forthcoming, to me that would seem to be a good indication that the topic is not as notable as others are suggesting. Also consider that these sources have been requested for over eight months. Adding fact is only ever a temporary measure, in the end it always comes do to a simple choice - cite information or remove it, and after the length of time the unverified information was retained in this case, it is weighing very heavily for the latter option. (as once uncited info is removed there is nothing worthwhile left to support the article) Regards, MartinRe 15:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Please see my comment (bottom). Article not meaningless. User:Yy-bo 19:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep important article that simply needs some work. Pathlessdesert 13:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment the article belongs to a series of articles on the same subject. Even in its current ugly state the article seems clear that the subject is a theory, and WP:NOT couldn't be applied without applying to all of the others. Agree that extent of fact tags is pathetic, but unfortunately Wikipedia has many articles littered with these, for example the article on Margaret Thatcher. I don't think that this warrants the scrapping of the entire article in either case. Pathlessdesert 16:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and supply with citations. Evertype 16:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Question - how long is a reasonable time to wait for these citations to be supplied, considering they have been requested for eight months? Regards, MartinRe 18:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment (unspecific) Consider an own wiki for this article, move to own wiki. Article looks like can improve from being edited in wiki style, however it is not encyclopedic. See Comparison_of_wiki_farms User:Yy-bo 19:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete &mdash; original research, crystal ball as above. Some of its content could be salvaged for a Property market in the Republic of Ireland article that does not presuppose one of the POVs it describes. Demiurge 22:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I have now found citations for some of the information on this article. Take a look. Pathlessdesert 12:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * comment I've done some work in trying to clean it up, with some attempt at NPOV, removing the worst OR, tagging facts that need to be referenced, and putting bull/bear arguments in one facts/figures section so as to start to address some of the other OR concerns. However, it is still in quite a state, and even if citations are found for all the figures given, the article itself would comprise of a paragraph saying that some say there is a bubble, followed by a list of figures which could be taken either way, which seems against NPOV in my view. I think it would be better for those interested to add a neutral paragraph to Economy of the Republic of Ireland about house prices/bubble/mortgage fraud (which are mentioned briefly in the lead) than to try and salvage this. (In which case I'd also suggest adding to that article afresh based on the references, and not a merge, as the latter would run the risk of the uncited OR being transferred as well) Regards, MartinRe 14:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - Impossible for the article to be NPOV. Putting a headiong of 'Opinions' isn't enough for me.  A list of stats doesn't add much without context.  Nothing here that can't be found on any Irish news site Dodge 19:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. May need some cleaning but is undoubtedly a very important topic for those living in Ireland. Page has been slowly improving with citations being inserted over time. Criticism of reference to Daft.ie report is pretty unwarranted as a yield rate approx equal to current ECB rate is obviously a Bearish argument. I have inserted this for clarity in the article.--19:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)Panzraam
 * Definitely Delete: Combination of unsupported statistics and opinion.  These views have been expressed over and over again through the last ten years and proved to be unfounded. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.71.68.208 (talk • contribs) 23:02, 5 September 2006  (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.