Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Irish constitutional referendums, 1968 (2nd nomination)

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 all. Michig (talk) 06:58, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Irish constitutional referendums, 1968[edit]

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

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are identical, non notable articles]:

It is not notable that two independent events occurred on the same date. Each referendum has it's own article which refers to the other referendum. Lots of stuff happened in 1968 - why should these two events be singled out? Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:35, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 20:01, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 20:01, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all for the same reason as the last AfD; the purpose of the articles is to have a "cover" article for the referendums that year, so that the year can be listed in {{Irish elections}}. Even without this, they are effectively a form of a WP:DAB, as we would have to have some form of disambiguation page for the two referendums on the same date. Also, although the two referendums had separate questions, I don't believe they can be called independent events, as voters would have voted in both at the same time, and there would likely have been crossover in the campaigns for/against them. Number 5 7 23:35, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Query How can there be crossover? Entirely separate questions are asked in most cases. In only one case were multiple questions related to each other. There is no obligation voters to vote in both at the same time; 1 or both could have happened or both could have been spoiled. And so what if they were on the same day? On some days, there were European elections, local elections and referendum questions; does that mean we should create a 3-way intersection? There is no need for a "cover" article. All that's needed is a hatnote in each. Who says we must have a "cover"? What's the link with Irish elections got to do with anything? A referendum is not an election. Nobody gets elected. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:22, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Because the events did not happen in isolation to each other. But anyway, that's a side note in comparison with the main reason to have them: disambiguation. In each of these cases, there were at least two constitutional referendums on the same day, so some form of DAB page is needed for each one (it wouldn't be possible to have Irish constitutional referendum XXXX redirect to one of them as there is no primary topic); in this case it's useful to go beyond a basic DAB page that simply links to the two articles by also providing a brief bit of detail about each one and the results, with the added bonus of also fitting in with the election years template (if you click the link to the template, hopefully you'll understand). Number 5 7 21:32, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like a solution to a problem that does not exist. Firstly, legally, the two events are independent of each other. You don't have to be a constitutional lawyer to grasp that as each is capable of getting a different result and each is capable of attracting different groups of supporters. Secondly, if it's disambiguation you want, create a nice DAB page and a few hatnotes, not this bloated thing that adds no new information. Thirdly, the election years template works fine when there are multiple elections in the same year, this could be the same by using the referendum number as a disambiguator. Also raises the question as to why the template is even adulterated with referendums. A future TfD candidate I think. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:41, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The template is one of a series of templates for all countries that includes elections and referendums – see Category:Europe election year templates and ones for the other continents. And of course the referendum questions are legally separate events, but I'm not talking in the legal sense. Whilst these pages may not have any "new information", they are summaries that allow readers to see the results of both/all three refendums in one place and allow comparison of the respective results (e.g. differeces in the numbers voting for/against and in total). Number 5 7 21:47, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll address the Template in a different forum. Their separateness in the legal sense is the only sense that matters. Anything else is just random stuff and coincidence. If all the rerenendums were listified and the results of each summarised, then this would be justifiable. But to select a couple to amalgamate just because they happened to take place on the same day makes no sense. It's just random, coincidental stuff. There is no link. Stop trying to make links where none exist. What about my point 2 above? What about my suggestion in point 3 above? Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:30, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's my opinion that they are linked and I've given my rationale, it's your opinion that they aren't. Let's see what others think; I don't see any point in continuing to waste any time here.

With regards to the templates, I'm not really sure that the issue is; they are designed to cover all national votes, whether they are elections or referendums, and I can't recall anyone questioning the logic of this before (and I've been working on elections/referendums for nearly a decade). I'd suggest you raise this at WP:E&R if you really have a problem with it. Cheers, Number 5 7 10:33, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are they really even entirely separate in the legal sense? At least in the United Kingdom there is the concept of polls at elections being legally "combined", acknowledging that they are taking place coterminously and thus that there will be a lot of shared administration. Kennethmac2000 (talk) 08:06, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I agree with the rationale for keeping in the previous request. Additionally, some of those pages are well-referenced. The others just need some more work, but there are many sources for all of them. Ajraddatz (talk) 00:52, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Of course they're well referenced - they use the same references as the main articles upon which they are entirely dependent. There is no value add here. There is no, repeat no new info here. What's your reaction to my points 1, 2, 3 above? Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:20, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's some structural need for the articles. It seems to me this issue has already been decided, and you've brought up nothing new to suggest why that should change. Ajraddatz (talk) 20:18, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What structural need? Could this need be met using just the two underlying articles? What about my points 1, 2 7 3 above as new rationale? You've not addressed them at all I think. As your only rationale for "keep" was referencing, which has, I think, been debunked, should you not change your vote now or supply new rationale for keeping? Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:10, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm not sure which points you are referring to. You could number them explicitly if you're going to refer to them like that. I disagree with your premise for nominating them for deletion, and ultimately think that there's no problem with having articles that group them by year and provide a brief overview. I'll reconsider if other people comment with different rationales for deletion or explain yours in a different/more understandable way. Ajraddatz (talk) 07:07, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:14, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I find the arguments advanced by the nominator to be dogmatic and pedantic. Constitutional referendums on the same ballot will certainly be discussed side-by-side in the same sources, and the relationships of one to the other will also be discussed. A student of constitutional referendums may well study these year by year. Such articles serve a useful purpose in organizing encyclopedic content and presenting that material to readers in a useful, logical format. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:59, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per N57. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:52, 17 April 2016 (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.