Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/British and Irish current events (2nd nomination)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 14:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Almost a month out of date. The only edit since 6th January has been a spelling correction. If the article is to be brought up to date it will have to be rewritten anyway. BigBlueFish 18:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- See also the first debate
- transwiki wikinews. --Craig Stuntz 18:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Yes, it does need to be kept up-to-date, and I would volunteer to do it if Wikipedia were not my primary source of current events. This is not a reason to delete though imho. Thryduulf 19:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep. The arguments have not changed since the previous AfD, therefore I restate my vote and comments from last time. Inactivity for a period is not grounds for deletion, and some of the other regional current events pages have had few edits since last summer/early autumn either. I also fail to understand what you mean by If the article is to be brought up to date it will have to be rewritten anyway - current events articles are not continuously rewritten, they are periodically archived. -- Arwel (talk) 01:33, 4 February 2006 (UTC) :[reply]
- Strong keep. Wikipedia has reported Current Events from the early days of its existence (that's why there's a link in the main navigation bar). The fact that nobody has considered anything that's happened in the UK or Ireland particularly noteworthy in the last 6 weeks or so which has not alternatively been listed in Current events is neither here nor there. If you press this deletion request, why have you not also listed Current events, Current sports events, Current science and technology events, Current events in Africa, Current events in Iraq, Current events in Hong Kong and Macao, Chinese current events,
Current events in Cisjordan,Canadian current events, United States current events, Current events in Australia and New Zealand, Current events in the European Union, and Current events in Poland, several of which have also not been updated since May? I point out that the regional current events pages were created because the world page was getting far too large. -- Arwel 5 July 2005 22:54 (UTC)- Comment - I hadn't really researched other regional current events articles, but my firm opinion is that these should also be deleted if they have not got anyone updating them. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. The purpose of such articles is to put Wikipedia articles in the context of current events; but this is pointless if nobody maintains them. The uniform nature of current events pages means that it's extremely easy to recreate one if there's at least one person prepared to maintain it at intervals smaller than a month. I cannot believe that with its current world focus that Chinese current events has not been updated since September. Even British and Irish current events have seen a story that made the first headline in Current events on February 2nd. The deletion of Current events in Cisjordan also establishes that you cannot justify this article just because others haven't been deleted yet. BigBlueFish 12:03, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - your comment that Even British and Irish current events have seen a story that made the first headline in Current events on February 2nd would appear to indicate that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose and usage of the current events articles: there's no such thing as a 'headline' event - items are added chronologically, the more recent at the top. Regional current events pages are used for interesting news items which exclusively affect those areas - if they are of wider interest or ramifications they go in the global article. The items should be used to link to associated encyclopaedia articles. As I said, the arguments have not changed since the last AfD nomination, and I would commend a re-reading of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/British and Irish current events. -- Arwel (talk) 13:22, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - forgive me for misunderstanding the ordering of the Current events article. It remains that one of the seven world headlines of that day was predominantly associated with the UK and no doubt has specific local consequences. It's beside the point though... the current article almost implies that Charles Kennedy is still standing for leader of the Lib Dems because of its outdatedness, and is confusing because it refers to days of the week as if it was documenting last week. I have read and re-read the previous AfD and there seem to be only two arguments justifying a keep. The first is that it will be updated; if this is the case then why has this not happened? Don't tell me that the Thames whale or the dissolution of Fathers4Justice don't fall into relevant topics for the article. The second is that the information documents past events in an encyclopedic fashion. Yes they do, but in this case they should not be labelled as current events. We should instead make 2006 in the UK or a similar title, just as the Irish, for example, have done with 2006 in Ireland. Take an outsider's view of the encyclopedia. This article makes it look bad. Why is it that we are so resistive to change? BigBlueFish 20:22, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - your comment that Even British and Irish current events have seen a story that made the first headline in Current events on February 2nd would appear to indicate that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose and usage of the current events articles: there's no such thing as a 'headline' event - items are added chronologically, the more recent at the top. Regional current events pages are used for interesting news items which exclusively affect those areas - if they are of wider interest or ramifications they go in the global article. The items should be used to link to associated encyclopaedia articles. As I said, the arguments have not changed since the last AfD nomination, and I would commend a re-reading of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/British and Irish current events. -- Arwel (talk) 13:22, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I should also point out that the last discussion involved the statement, "It will (we promise) continue to be maintained.". That lasted five months. It's more important to focus on the core of the encylopedia and leave things like this to Wikinews if there isn't enough interest to keep it going. BigBlueFish 12:07, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Fair play, please; that quote is taken out of context, and was made by someone arguing for the page's deletion. Hiding talk 08:59, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - apologies. The comment was made by someone arguing for the page's deletion who was assessing the reasons for inclusion. As such it reflects promises made by You, func, and Thryduulf, and conditional keep votes by Joolz and adamsan. BigBlueFish 13:36, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Point of order: I made no such promise. I offered help in keeping the page up to date. Nobody used the word promise except for Aaron. Hiding talk 13:48, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - your words were "I will help to keep it up to date". That's a positive future assertion, whether or not it is to be interpreted as a commitment. I'm not criticising the fact that you haven't been able to sustain that assertion, which I understand, but that at least some people chose to support keeping the article on the grounds that they thought that you and others would. BigBlueFish 15:44, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I am merely seeking to redress the fact that the comments in question do not support the statement you were seeking to base on the strength of them. Your latest statement, that people have voted keep in that debate on the grounds that they thought it would be maintained is somewhat misleading too. One user voted keep as long as it is maintained, but that vote made no mention of who maintains it or how often it should be maintained. The original discussion is there for all to read and draw their own conclusions from; there is no need to keep referring to facets of it. I would also hope it isn't too much to ask for some sort of apology for your interpretation of my words as implying a commitment when you agree no such commitment is inherent within them. I apologise if you feel I am taking this too personally; I merely happen to believe my words should not be presented as meaning more than they did. As I stated, I offered help in keeping the page up to date; your quotation of my exact words, "I will help to keep it up to date", supports that, and so I find myself unclear as to why you felt it necessary to quote my own words at me when I have already elucidated what I said, and when they are already on the record for all to see. Rather than get sidetracked into debating the merits and arguments of the previous discussion, would it not be better to allow this one to develop? My offer still stands: I am willing to help maintain the page. Hiding talk 16:18, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- But will you? Nobody makes any commitments on Wikipedia for which they can be blamed or incriminated for should they not honour them. That is the free nature of the wiki. The use of the word "promise" may in that sense be interpreted as such a commitment, and I apologise for such an ambiguity, which was made for the sake of quoting a past summary of the last consensus. It remains that "I will" instigates much more optimism than "I am willing". We are now in the position to look back at our decision, see that in spite of good intentions it has not proved practicable, stop trying to maintain that the content of the article is current and refocus our efforts on content that does not expire. BigBlueFish 16:36, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I appreciate your apology; as to anyone maintaining the article is current, I'm not sure anyone is. The page however, cannot be archived since we can't move it whilst it is up for afd. I'm also unclear as to how to split the page history into four pages, so that those users who contributed can be credited at October 2005 in Britain and Ireland, November 2005 in Britain and Ireland, December 2005 in Britain and Ireland and January 2006 in Britain and Ireland. Hiding talk 17:07, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- But will you? Nobody makes any commitments on Wikipedia for which they can be blamed or incriminated for should they not honour them. That is the free nature of the wiki. The use of the word "promise" may in that sense be interpreted as such a commitment, and I apologise for such an ambiguity, which was made for the sake of quoting a past summary of the last consensus. It remains that "I will" instigates much more optimism than "I am willing". We are now in the position to look back at our decision, see that in spite of good intentions it has not proved practicable, stop trying to maintain that the content of the article is current and refocus our efforts on content that does not expire. BigBlueFish 16:36, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I am merely seeking to redress the fact that the comments in question do not support the statement you were seeking to base on the strength of them. Your latest statement, that people have voted keep in that debate on the grounds that they thought it would be maintained is somewhat misleading too. One user voted keep as long as it is maintained, but that vote made no mention of who maintains it or how often it should be maintained. The original discussion is there for all to read and draw their own conclusions from; there is no need to keep referring to facets of it. I would also hope it isn't too much to ask for some sort of apology for your interpretation of my words as implying a commitment when you agree no such commitment is inherent within them. I apologise if you feel I am taking this too personally; I merely happen to believe my words should not be presented as meaning more than they did. As I stated, I offered help in keeping the page up to date; your quotation of my exact words, "I will help to keep it up to date", supports that, and so I find myself unclear as to why you felt it necessary to quote my own words at me when I have already elucidated what I said, and when they are already on the record for all to see. Rather than get sidetracked into debating the merits and arguments of the previous discussion, would it not be better to allow this one to develop? My offer still stands: I am willing to help maintain the page. Hiding talk 16:18, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - your words were "I will help to keep it up to date". That's a positive future assertion, whether or not it is to be interpreted as a commitment. I'm not criticising the fact that you haven't been able to sustain that assertion, which I understand, but that at least some people chose to support keeping the article on the grounds that they thought that you and others would. BigBlueFish 15:44, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Point of order: I made no such promise. I offered help in keeping the page up to date. Nobody used the word promise except for Aaron. Hiding talk 13:48, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - apologies. The comment was made by someone arguing for the page's deletion who was assessing the reasons for inclusion. As such it reflects promises made by You, func, and Thryduulf, and conditional keep votes by Joolz and adamsan. BigBlueFish 13:36, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Fair play, please; that quote is taken out of context, and was made by someone arguing for the page's deletion. Hiding talk 08:59, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I hadn't really researched other regional current events articles, but my firm opinion is that these should also be deleted if they have not got anyone updating them. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. The purpose of such articles is to put Wikipedia articles in the context of current events; but this is pointless if nobody maintains them. The uniform nature of current events pages means that it's extremely easy to recreate one if there's at least one person prepared to maintain it at intervals smaller than a month. I cannot believe that with its current world focus that Chinese current events has not been updated since September. Even British and Irish current events have seen a story that made the first headline in Current events on February 2nd. The deletion of Current events in Cisjordan also establishes that you cannot justify this article just because others haven't been deleted yet. BigBlueFish 12:03, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep. Wikipedia has reported Current Events from the early days of its existence (that's why there's a link in the main navigation bar). The fact that nobody has considered anything that's happened in the UK or Ireland particularly noteworthy in the last 6 weeks or so which has not alternatively been listed in Current events is neither here nor there. If you press this deletion request, why have you not also listed Current events, Current sports events, Current science and technology events, Current events in Africa, Current events in Iraq, Current events in Hong Kong and Macao, Chinese current events,
- Delete. This belongs on WikiNews, but we can't transwiki it because of license incompatibility. Stifle 01:43, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - It doesn't even need to be transwikied. We already have wikinews:United Kingdom. BigBlueFish 20:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. It's not a transwiki, WikiNews is for first-hand news accounts, which this page is not. Otherwise we would have to transwiki and delete all current affairs pages. If the page does become inactive, I would suggest users consider simply redirecting the page to Current events if they are concerned. As to the inactivity of the page, I no longer have the time to update this page solely, and although I contacted various people who indicated they would help at the last afd, none was forthcoming. Hiding talk 08:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. It is as far as I can see inaccurate to say that "Wikinews is for first-hand news accounts." Read this page and note the "two main kinds of articles." As far as I can see, most of the articles on the Wikinews main page right now appear to be non-first-hand. --Craig Stuntz 13:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Apologise, I was relying on WP:NOT; Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories (however, our sister project Wikinews does exactly that). It's still not necessarily a transwiki though, as per WP:NOT Wikipedia does have many encyclopedia articles on topics of historical significance that are currently in the news, and can be significantly more up-to-date than most reference sources since we can incorporate new developments and facts as they are made known. See current events for examples. Hiding talk 13:48, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. It is as far as I can see inaccurate to say that "Wikinews is for first-hand news accounts." Read this page and note the "two main kinds of articles." As far as I can see, most of the articles on the Wikinews main page right now appear to be non-first-hand. --Craig Stuntz 13:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Current events. In light of the discussion here, I think it would be more appropriate in terms of preserving the history to redirect until somebody is able to maintain it. BigBlueFish 13:36, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Absolutely pointless if not to be kept up to date. Also inappropriate title. The description of the page undermines the title. The Channel Islands are listed in the description of the page, yet they are not part of Britain or Ireland. TomPhil 00:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The Channel Islands are legally British Islands. They are also thought by many to be part of the British Isles. Also, the term British does not always refer to Britain. Your point regarding the name is therefore somewhat redundant. Hiding talk 21:04, 8 February 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.