Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clifton East (ward)

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 keep. (non-admin closure) Rollidan (talk) 20:29, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Clifton East (ward)[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Clifton East ward ceased to exist in May 2016. See 2016 Bristol City Council election and https://www.bristol.gov.uk/statistics-census-information/new-wards-data-profiles

Please either update content to show it is a former ward, or delete page.

I have a conflict of interest as I was the councillor of that ward, and am now the councillor of Clifton Down ward, which covers part of Clifton East plus a neighbouring ward.

I have submitted a proposed new page Clifton Down (ward) which is currently waiting to be approved.

My motivation for creating the new page and asking for the old one to be removed is not self-promotion, I just want to remove this very out of date info as it causes confusion for my constituents.

I am new to Wikipedia editing so please let me know if you need any more info from me. Thanks C denyer (talk) 18:17, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. C denyer (talk) 18:17, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. C denyer (talk) 18:17, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. C denyer (talk) 18:17, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:DEFUNCTS just because the ward was abolished doesn't mean the article should be deleted, if the info is outdated it should be changed to indicate that its no longer current. It could possibly be merged with the Clifton, Bristol article or new ward though. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:21, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Crouch, Swale and Spintendo: Crouch Swale, I nominated the article for deletion because Spintendo advised me to. I don't mind if it's deleted or updated, I was just doing what I was advised as this is my first ever foray into article deletion. Please do not merge with Clifton, Bristol though. This is a neighbouring ward that is 'separate' from both Clifton East and Clifton Down, merging them will add to the already considerable confusion about wards in this city. The reason I think deleting would be good is that Wikipedia generally doesn't have pages for other former electoral wards, because they're not notable, so I thought it better to create a new page for Clifton Down (ward) (pending approval) which makes a brief reference to Clifton East. C denyer (talk) 18:34, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@C denyer: there are several in Category:Former wards of the United Kingdom but there are probably many wards that no longer exist but simply aren't in that category. An entity doesn't simply become non notable just because it no longer exists, however it could be merged if there's a significant overlap with the new ward but as noted you don't think that's a good idea anyway. Also note that I closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Draft:Sandbox since I'm not sure which article you wanted to delete. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:42, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is no policy based reason being advanced for deletion. If the ward no longer exists then updating the article should be little more effort than adding the word "former" in front of "ward". That we have few other former ward articles is explicitly not a reason for deletion per WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST, WP:DEFUNCTS and WP:OUTDATED. SpinningSpark 23:00, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Formerly legally-recognized areas are still legally-recognized areas for GEOLAND purposes. I'm fine with a merger as well if that is desired. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 02:14, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, and merge in new stuff, and move the article to the new preferred title. I am not familiar with the actual details, but from this discussion it seems the two overlap geographically mostly, and therefore it reasonable to have just one article titled "Clifton Down (ward)" with a section or otherwise covering the previous, defunct "Clifton East (ward)". In general we should prefer to keep stuff that has been created and seek alternatives to deletion (wp:ATD) such as moving/renaming and otherwise editing, rather than deleting and recreating stuff. Thank you C denyer for your reasonable discussion and contribution making sense of this here already. --Doncram (talk) 19:18, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question Thanks all for your input so far. If the conclusion is keep and merge, I am happy to do the work myself, using the draft I recently submitted for a new Clifton Down (ward) page as a template. Alternatively, I can post the draft text here/send it to someone, if you feel it would be better written by someone without any COI. I'm happy to be steered by those of you with more experience. Thanks C denyer (talk) 10:57, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not entirely convinced that you do have a conflict of interest. You certainly have an association with the subject, but that only becomes a conflict if your primary purpose is something other than writing an encyclopaedia. My opinion on merging is that it is unnecessary and at the moment it is looking unlikely that this AfD will be closed as merge. Although AfDs can be closed as merge, closing as keep does not preclude a merge (after consensus on the article talk page – see Wikipedia:Merging) at a later date. If a merge is to be done, the cleanest way of doing it is to merge the new draft material into the existing article and then rename it. Doing it the other way round, although possible, does not automatically retain the history and author attribution which is a requirement of the copyright license. But as I said, I don't think there is really a problem with having two separate articles. SpinningSpark 12:31, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep although wards change a lot more than parishes they are really still legally recognized places. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:00, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Insufficient rationale for deletion. WP:NTEMP is a policy reason not to delete. WP:ATD WP:PRESERVE are reasons to keep. Perhaps title change to include (former ward) - per suggestion of Spinning Spark. Wm335td (talk) 17:50, 16 August 2019 (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.