Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neo-Unionism in Ireland


 * 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. Kurykh (talk) 03:12, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Neo-Unionism in Ireland

 * – ( View AfD View log )

I don't think this page is necessary and risks replicating material on traditional Irish unionism. Reichsfürst (talk) 20:16, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The issue of Irish Neo-Unionism is being increasingly spoken about in regard to the United Kingdom's role in Ireland. Of course, there is a fair amount on traditional Irish Unionism between northern and southern Ireland already, but relatively little on Neo-Unionism, of which much of the material would be different to traditional Irish unionism. Traditional Irish unionism would either be a form in which Northern Ireland would join the Irish Republic or Partitionist Unionism, but the topic of Neo-Unionism would be an interesting addition to the broader topic of Irish Unionism as it would be the ROI joining the UK. Lolcackle (talk) 20:32, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Then we need sources on it and referring to it. Reichsfürst (talk) 20:35, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Sources will be added. I'm new to creating/editing pages on Wikipedia and, by extension, sourcing and referencing. Give me a little time and it will be done. Lolcackle (talk) 20:50, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - Lolcackle, (laugh out loud cackle), you cannot be serious. there is as much chance of "Neo-Uniosism" as there is of snow in the Atacama. This article is not encyclopedic - it is a political argument for an airy fairy possibility. I believe it is a hoax in poor taste.  Mark   Dask  21:06, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


 * With all due respect, just because something has little chance of happening doesn't mean it won't happen. I haven't yet finished the article and am currently writing the anti Neo-Unionism arguments: I understand that the article needs to be neutral and I will make sure this is done. It will be encyclopedic, other articles look at political arguments that may have an "airy fairy possibility" of happening. This article is not intended as a hoax, nor is it meant in poor taste and it will be a reference point for people who may have interest in the subject. After all, an article can be of interest and be informative even if something is unlikely to happen at this current time. Lolcackle (talk) 21:27, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay Lolcackle - finish the article and I will comment on the finished article. I should declare an interest here - I am an Irish Nationalist - but I am a Wikipedian first so persuade me. Mark   Dask  21:51, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I would like to add, you did say snow on the Atacama, but see here: []. Give me time, I want to make sure that the article is as neutral as possible so that both the arguments for and against are represented, and as you consider yourself both a wikipedian and an Irish nationalist, I would appreciate whatever arguments and information you have to make this a good article. I respect the notion of Neo-Unionism does not appeal to you, and probably most people in Ireland, but there is a small minority that this does appeal to and all that this article will try to do is inform people with an interest in the topic. I honestly want to show that this is not a narrow-minded politcal hoax. Lolcackle (talk) 22:02, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Even leaving aside the fact that this appears to be a hoax the characterisation of the Act of Union and subsequent events much of the history set out appears to be simplistic verging on POV. While I am confident that a small number of people could be found who would support this view in Ireland, it is not clear to me that this exceeds the number who believe that the earth is flat or that the world will end next year. If clarity were provided on this point by some reference to main stream media there might be some justification for keeping this page, albeit with substantial amendment. At present it appears to be a soapbox piece that could usefully be moved to user space pending the addition of verifiable citations of reliable sources. FrankFlanagan (talk) 22:25, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:FRINGE --Eamonnca1 (talk) 04:21, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete: Despite the addition of citations for certain tangential facts, this article is original research from beginning to end. Scolaire (talk) 08:04, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions.  —Scolaire (talk) 08:13, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, if I emphasise that this is a very minor issue in Ireland presently and all facts can be backed up with citations, would this address Eamonnca1 and Scolaire's concerns? Lolcackle (talk) 17:41, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


 * It depends what you mean by "facts". Most of the article as it stands is opinion, not fact. What's needed is documentary evidence that there is a significant body of people somewhere who hold those opinions. The closest you have come to that so far is the Dilettante ref. Unfortunately, blogs do not count as reliable sources when determining the notability of a topic. Bottom line, if you could satisfy WP:Verifiabilty, WP:Reliable sources and WP:No original research then it would address my concerns. Frankly, I don't think you will be able to do that. Scolaire (talk) 18:29, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete as per very WP:FRINGE Bjmullan (talk) 22:02, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 22 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. It's a new article, but on a subject that I have read about in the past few years. I'd say that deleting this is the wrong move, instead we should work together, nationalist and unionist, to improve it. Laurellien (talk) 10:59, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom. Definitely WP:FRINGE, totally unsourced.  --HighKing (talk) 15:27, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per everyone else. -- The Silent Blues 12:44, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:44, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Relisting comment. More participation is needed from "non-partisan" editors. More discussion is needed about whether or not the article meets our inclusion criteria as there has been little mention of verifiability, notability or sourcing. WP:FRINGE is more about how an article on a fringe topic should be written then on whether or not it should exist. A fringe theory can be notable and an encyclopedic article written on it. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:50, 28 June 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.