Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Whig Parliament


 * 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. JForget 00:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Whig Parliament

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

A specific sitting of a specific parliament under a specific party? No. We can have articles for specific sittings, fine (I've written one myself) but a broad generalisation of "list of parliaments in which party X was in charge" isn't particularly useful. Ironholds (talk) 07:23, 22 July 2009 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 03:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions.  -- the wub  "?!"  09:19, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  -- the wub  "?!"  09:19, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Whig_(British_political_faction).  young  american  (wtf?) 11:06, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * comment This is the beginning of a possible useful article that didn't go further. Since specific Congresses in the US are notable--generally with very extensive articles, listing every member articles, ditto for the UK--but amazingly, we seem not to have written most of them; for this period, see List of Parliaments of England. There are thousands of books to be used as sources--and at least two specific journals   ( A summary list of those where one party was in power in addition--seems a good idea, but it would have to be developed further.)DGG (talk) 23:12, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I can see articles being developed on the Whig Supremacy, and on individual parliaments (I've written a few myself) but not on Whig parliaments in general. Ironholds (talk) 10:01, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem with the article is really that it simply has the wrong name. The 1679 Parliament documented here isn't known as a "Whig Parliament".  It's known as an Exclusion Parliament, and it was the first of three such Exclusion Parliaments. (source).  Collectively they and their accompanying General Elections formed the Exclusion Crisis.  (ISBN 9780631213918 pp. 227)  The third Exclusion Parliament, summoned in March 1681, is also known as the Oxford Parliament (1681). (ISBN 9780631213932 pp. 286) Uncle G (talk) 22:05, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete Aside from the wrong name, the contents isn't actually useful even if the name were changed.. DGG (talk) 04:09, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * After reading Uncle G's argument, I think we have a choice between (a) deleting this article and starting afresh with Exclusion Parliament, or (b) renaming this article to Exclusion Parliament and rewriting the content. The difference between the two is in the writing credit, attribution and copyright rather than the practical effect, but I have a marginal preference for (b) because renaming and rewriting seems slightly less toothsome than deleting and starting again.  I wouldn't mind overmuch if it were deleted, though.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  17:14, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete (which i prefer to rename). Certainly, if it must exist, it should be renamed Exclusion Parliament, but i think there may be too many issues to bother. No refs; the original intention behind the article (which was list-oriented) would be abandoned; what little writing there is is currently unencyclopedic; may be inconsistent with other naming conventions (how will/are articles on later parliaments named? For New Zealand they are numbered articles; for Australia there are elections by years and governments by PM name, but not parliaments; the nearest thing in modern UK articles appears to be articles like this: MPs elected in the United Kingdom general election, 1997, which is really a different kettle of fish altogether). I think it should be deleted, and when someone takes an interest in writing about the Exclusion Parliaments as a group, that should proceed. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:27, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete -- There is nothign of value in this except the final paragraph. English Parliaments do not have numbers and thus have to have names or dates.  That paragraph might be saved as First Exclusion Parliament, but it is probably better to start from scratch.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:44, 1 August 2009 (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.