Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orcadian

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 redirect to Orkney Islands. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Breach of WP:NPOV. This article was created from the original Redirect to the Orkney Islands article, and is purporting to describe a nationality, or perhaps (even more ridiculously) an ethnicity, called "Orcadian". No such nationality nor ethnicity exists, or has ever existed; and Orkney has never been a state (the island was Pictish before the Norse occupation). Orkney is one of the 32 council areas of Scotland, nothing more and nothing less. Its status is exactly the same as North Ayrshire, Aberdeenshire or Fife. The creation of this page is part of a campaign by User:Mallimak to utterly divorce Orkney from Scotland. For example, see his persistent attempt to remove Category:Orcadian Wikipedians from Category:Scottish Wikipedians and add it into Category:Scandinavian Wikipedians. He seems to think that he "owns" certain articles (see WP:OWN), including this one. I have tried to re-instate the Redirect to Orkney Islands, but been reverted. I note for example that Glaswegian redirects to Glasgow, and Bostonian is a dab page. There is nothing about the word Orcadian that cannot simply be stated at the Orkney Islands article; Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Mais oui! 09:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. —Nightstallion (?) 09:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore Redirect. "Orcadian" needs to go somewhere, and Orkney Islands is the obvious place. Tevildo 09:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore Redirect as per Tevildo. Dionyseus 09:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment nomination is an attempt to resolve a content dispute via AFD, so I'm minded to keep the article. POV issues, unless irremediable, are not grounds for deletion in most cases. The same is true of WP:OWN. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as POV-fork, and reinstate redirect. The article appears to treat the culture and history of Orkney, which can be done just as well in the main article. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as redirect, at least until such time as the "Orcadian people" section of "Orkney islands" expands to the point of needing to be factored out for summary style reasons, rather than POV-fork-ish ones. Angus is correct, however, this is technically a misapplication of AFD, though one that's tempting to use as an effective means of gauging consensus for turning into a redirect (even though that's not in theory effective). Perhaps an argument for a more active "centralised merge/redirect process" of some sort. Alai 16:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore redirect to Orkney. Not really a viable article as it is. I don't doubt there could be enough history or reliable POV to establish a separate article, but there is not even enough content in the main article - come back when the Orkney article is filled up and there are more references. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Orkney Islands BillC 19:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy close. An AfD is not the right way to resolve a content dispute. There is enough consensus here to simply restore the redirect and merge the content into Orkney Islands. Thanks/wangi 20:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• No vote. In protest at the hijacking of AfD to settle what is blatantly a content dispute, per Angus. I don't see anything wrong with the article's existence per se- Glaswegian may redirect to Glasgow, but for example Cockney and Geordie do not redirect to London or Newcastle. By the same token, the article is clearly a POV fork. In future I'd suggest the parties actually get their heads together and try and talk constructively to one another before resorting to these kind of tactics. Badgerpatrol 02:08, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep!

Mais oui! says: “This article ... is purporting to describe a nationality, or perhaps (even more ridiculously) an ethnicity, called "Orcadian". No such nationality nor ethnicity exists, or has ever existed; and Orkney has never been a state (the island was Pictish before the Norse occupation).” - I am afraid this is simply Mais oui!’s POV. He is not qualified to make such claims until he has read up a bit on Orkney (I suggest some books to get him started on the Orcadian discussion page), or maybe lived here for a while. The concept and the article do not fit in with his prejudices and so he is determined to have the article removed. He has already tried removing the page without any debate (vandalism).

This article has a legitimate place in Wikipedia. As Badgerpatrol points out, Cockney and Geordie do not redirect to London or Newcastle. (Note that I am not the first to introduce the term “Orcadian” to Wikipedia, there was already a very brief list of “Some well-known Orcadians” on the Orkney Islands page before I started editing. - It might be sensible to expand this list, as I have added a lot more to Wikipedia in the meantime, and move it into the "Orcadian" article.)

I never wanted to get into a dispute with Mais oui! I know there is the warning: “If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it“, but I never expected such pettiness or such prejudice. I have not been the only target, judging by the comment in the “Orkney people stub” debate:

” Comment- Mais_oui! has a history of going through articles changing "British" to "Scottish"- so it isn't very surprising he is opposing the changes you made. Astrotrain 19:41, 4 July 2006 (UTC)”[reply]

Mais oui!’s statement: “Orkney is one of the 32 council areas of Scotland, nothing more and nothing less.” is a clear demonstration of his prejudice. In international law there is still doubt over the status of the islands, which is why John D. Mackay’s letter provoked the response it did. (Mais oui! insists on turning the patriotic Orcadian, John D. Mackay into a “Scottish man of letters”, I note.) The Scandinavians still see Orkney and Shetland as forming a part of Scandinavia (an historic and cultural designation rather than a political one), which is why they will allow the coats of arms of Orcadians and Shetlanders to be placed in the Skandinavisk Vapenrulla, a right they do not extend to any of the other 30 council areas of Scotland. The unofficial flag of Orkney (which you see flying all over the islands) is a Scandinavian cross based on that of the Kalmar Union of which Orkney was a part. There is a lot more to Orkney than Mais oui! will admit, or maybe there is lot more to Orkney than he knows - which is all the more reason to have this information in Wikipedia!

Is Wikipedia going to allow itself to be limited by Mais oui!’s prejudices? I hope not.

Mallimak 08:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy close. Whether Orcadian is a redirect to Orkney Islands or an article is not a matter for AfD. Spacepotato 08:54, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Orkney Islands Will (message me!) 19:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I'd be happy with a speedy close per Spacepotato and others. But since I'm here: redirect. - Jmabel | Talk 03:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Orkney Islands is my official opinion, however I agree with the above that this is not really an issue for AfD. On the other side of the coin, though, this article is obviously a POV fork--the fluff should be removed and the rest merged to Orkney Islands.--WilliamThweatt 15:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.