Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The size of Wales


 * 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 merge to List of unusual units of measurement per WP:UNDUE, but without the patently silly conversion table. The editors of the target article are of course free to edit or reduce this content as they see fit. Sandstein (talk) 21:48, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

The size of Wales

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

I don't see what makes this encyclopedic, or worthy of a stand-alone article. As part of List of unusual units of measurement it would be fine, but going on Google hits it's only marginally more notable than "The size of England", and only about twice as notable as "The size of Ireland" and "The size of Scotland" - and interestingly, it's only one third as Google-notable as "The size of France" (although obviously ghits are not an indicator of notability, there's no good reason to single out Wales here). I don't even particularly see the purpose of a redirect here, but I'd like to see what you think. It also seems to have large amounts of original research.h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 01:42, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 *  Delete : All the mention that this phrase needs is already included in this section. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:50, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Transwiki: To Wikitionary per Dhartung's comment below. - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:56, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - not encyclopedic.   jj137  ( Talk ) 02:07, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge into List_of_unusual_units_of_measurement and redirect. --Stlemur (talk) 02:25, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per above  C t j f 8 3  03:01, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It's listed at WP:UNUSUAL, by the way.--h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 03:11, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect per Stlemur. JJL (talk) 05:02, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Transwiki to Wiktionary as a British media idiom (on the order of The Onion's "area man"). There are hits galore in Google News Archive, but about the only mention I found about it per se is here, which isn't enough for WP:NEO. --Dhartung | Talk 05:16, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I like Dhartung's transwiki suggestion.--h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 05:44, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not familiar with Wikitionary. I was under the impression it was for words, not expressions.  Am I wrong? - Rjd0060 (talk) 07:10, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Very few dictionaries are restricted purely to standalone words, and neither is Wiktionary. See Category:English idioms and Category:English phrases for starters. The FAQ.--Dhartung | Talk 09:00, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks. - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:56, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep It would be interesting to know how many of the above contributors are British. I'm not surprised by the lack of Googlehits - this phrase has a very specific context - its use by British TV news media. However, within that context, it's unique use, rather than those of England etc. is undisputed. If there is a consensus against keep then I'd be comfortable with Merge and redirect as next best option. SP-KP (talk) 09:24, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, see . Deletion would be against our aspiration to include articles on all subjects which are covered in other encyclopaedias (See WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles) SP-KP (talk) 09:33, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think we need to emulate another wiki with different inclusion standards. Nor are cultural differences a necessary explanation when there simply aren't enough sources for an article. I'm willing to do a WP:HEY here, but where are the sources to use? --Dhartung | Talk 10:07, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I am British and I don't think it's an appropriate Wikipedia article. It violates WP:NOT and attempts to expand on it through original research without having any valid citations. Dictionaries, as stated, can include idioms such as this.--h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 14:21, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep but I can understand the reservations of those wanting to delete. I think I'm getting the hang of this Afd thing. After reading the article I'm pretty sure that it is correct and accurate, that it is in fact true. A there gainst this are those that insist that Wikipedia should work on the principle of Verifiable not what is true. There are hits a plenty if you search the BBC website for the term "The size of Wales" and there is Size of Wales.co.uk, it is also used in academic circles with  and  (I was trying to find an academic study for its use as an unit of measurement, but could only find it being used). The closest I've found to a reputable secondary source is half a line in the Guardian style guide  All this only shows the term is in use, ie primary sources can be found but not  reputable secondary sources; and to move directly from primary sources to an article is OR. Despite accepting this I think it can be justified to give this article a temporary stay of execution, given that there is substantial use of the term, it is not impossible that a serious study of the topic exists. A stay, and tagging as being in need of references, would give those who may know or have access to sources a chance to add references. Is 5 days really enough time for random selection of passing Wikipedians to throw up someone with the knowledge and inclination to reference this article?. As an aside as to it being tagged for Worldview, I don't think that it is part of the Wiki project to culturally homogenise us all, Wikipedia should enlighten readers to the cultural differences in the media of different nations to readers from other parts of the world. Accurately reflecting local world views, is much more useful than trying to harmonising around common denominators. For example there would be no tagging for worldview if the details of local marriage customs in the different nations of the world were different from our own, as it would be accepted and respected that that aspect of a nation's culture would differ from one's own. Just because the media, in this case the UK, has aspects similar to that understood by users in other parts of the world, it does not mean that there are no local differences, and that these local differences should be removed.KTo288 (talk) 13:49, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * And that's why it should be transwikied to Wiktionary instead. There is no known substantial coverage of the term, only the term in use itself without a description of the term, except possibly the Guardian article - making this article full of original research. Also, why not have an article on "the size of England/Ireland/Scotland/France/Tajikistan/El Salvador/Burkina Faso"? Although the last three are unlikely as units of measurement in the Western world and Anglosphere, the former four are not.-h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 14:18, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge per Stlemur. While it might merit a mention, this article is original research. - Revolving Bugbear  16:07, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Irish people would use "The size of Ireland" Or Chinese use "The size of China".Why don't they have articles?Becuse they are sayings by their own people.IslaamMaged126 (talk) 16:18, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Request Could one of the editors above who are using WP:OR as a reason for deletion list the sections of the article which they feel consitute original research? I agree that there is some content present which appears to be OR and should be dealt with, but to my eye, even if all of this was deleted (rather than sourced), we'd still be left with an acceptable start-class article. SP-KP (talk) 16:49, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The third sentence, to me, appears to constitute an acceptable definition. The rest is impossible to source, as far as I can tell. --Dhartung | Talk 21:06, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep or Merge Its a valid term, specific to the UK, and is often used on media, tv and radio programs to indicate land areas relative to wales, or for instance Devon, or occasionally in Scotland, Glasgow. I have heard the phrase used principally to compare Wales to forests areas lost in Borneo and the Amazon basin. I think the article should be merged into a parent article (if one is available). scope_creep (talk) 20:17, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That parent article is here.
 * Transwiki to Wikttionary per Dhartung. Edison (talk) 02:10, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge per others. Seems we're placing WP:UNDUE weight on this one specific example of a known (to some) thing to describe some other thing. DMacks (talk) 19:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep The phrase and the sizeofwales.co.uk website have been referenced in the New Scientist and in the Daily Telegraph and Glasgow Herald - this is a common size comparison in the UK media... suggest a stay of execution and flagging with citation requests. 10:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.6.12.67 (talk)
 * Merge and redirect which is what I tried to do a while ago, but we couldn't reach consensus on the merge and I left it. Cricketgirl (talk) 20:15, 21 November 2007 (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.