Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The British Isles and 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 let it snow--redirected to British Isles. Non-admin closure.Blueboy 96 20:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The British Isles and Ireland

POV fork of British Isles created by an editor who appears to not like the name British Isles, as evidenced on Talk:British Isles and has reacted hostilely to any suggestions of other editors editing it [1].. Ben W Bell talk 15:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. JJL 16:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Described by the editor who created it as a "solution I had to the impossibility of getting agreement from the British editors" POV fork. --sony-youth^pléigh 16:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, WP:POINT violation. Google hits for "British Isles and Ireland" = 25,000. Google hits for "British Isles" alone = 35 million. The prosecution rests. RGTraynor 16:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May I correct you. Google hits for British Isles is 1.5m and not 35m. See here [2] - Gold♣heart 16:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May I correct you back? Your link is from the Irish Google. The 35 million figure (actually, 35,300,000) comes from Google.com. [3] RGTraynor 18:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did it on Google.com and got 1.5m [4], don't know where you are getting your 35m from. A random pick, Google of Rashaida people = 10. And Google of The British Isles and Ireland = 25,200 . Now nobody is trying to delete Rashaida people and I certainly hope that will never happen. Can you see my interpretation. Gold♣heart 19:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that there is a more common term for "Rashaida people"? --sony-youth^pléigh 19:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The argument that you are referring to is about Google numbers, and it's on that basis my reply was given. Maybe start another thread. Gold♣heart 19:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If that reply was to me, it made a much sense as having a seperate article for "British Isles and Ireland" - whatever that is! --sony-youth^pléigh 19:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.176.105.39 (talk • contribs)
I agree with nom. Redirect the title to British Isles (terminology) and merge refs 2-4 with British Isles naming dispute. Yechiel Man 16:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The term is used in Ireland anyway. It is quite strange that Wikipedia would block all reference to the term, which could be interpreted as a WP pov bias. I believe a merge is far better than a delete. Gold♣heart 16:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm sorry ... I thought we were debating whether an independent article by this name was necessary. I don't recall seeing anything requiring Wikipedia to abolish all references to the term, or deleting the British Isles naming dispute article, where this is properly placed. Furthermore, WP:NPOV does not require equal time given to viewpoints in the vast minority. To quote from WP:NPOV: "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not." RGTraynor 18:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect per YechielMan, clear POV fork but has a couple of salvageable references to at least document the useage of the term. Arkyan  ^(talk) 16:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/delete neologism created by an editor who has stated that she "detests and objects to the word British".[5] She's entitled to her opinions but Wikipedia must not coin new terms to reflect them. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 17:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to have to correct you. It is not a neologism, see here [6] Gold♣heart 17:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hmm... perhaps. Seems to me that although those terms will occasionally be put side by side she is nevertheless promoting an alternative name, which has never, as far as I can tell, been defined as a single entity or explicitly stated as an equivalent to the term she dislikes, in other words she's neologising.--Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 17:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, Sony-Youth and RGTraynor. Merge refs to British Isles naming dispute. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 18:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and warn creator; blatant WP:TROLLing. Waggers 19:10, 29 May 2007 (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.