Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lords Reform

Add links
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 was no clear consensus - I'm restarting the AFDs due to extensive changes made to the article(s), and making two separate AFDs for the two remaining articles instead. The other subpages appear to have already been deleted. Cowman109Talk 01:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The new AFDs are at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lords Reform (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lords Reform - History. Please re-evaluate the articles's candidacy for deletion there. Thank you. Cowman109Talk 01:37, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lords Reform[edit]

  • Note to closing admin -- I would urge that you close this AFD as "void" per User:Equendil's suggestion below. As this diff should show, the primary author has put in a lot of effort to address criticisms posted here and, as a result, the article has changed significantly since it was nominated for deletion. Since most of the delete votes were made before October 2, it is very likely that the editors were voting on a radically different version article and might not have voted delete if they had read the current article instead. If the new article is worthy of deletion, it can be re-nominated and we can get a consensus to delete based upon the new article.
Also note that the original nominator has withdrawn his nomination of the article for deletion.
  • Comment Ugh, and that's why articles should not be moved until after the AFD is finished. Too bad User:Haseler didn't read the AFD header text and follow the rules.
Nonetheless, it should be obvious that it is time to close this AFD as "void" and start over if anyone still feels that the current article at Lords Reform warrants deletion.
--Richard 22:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Same argument applies to the subpages that were added to the nomination. It's very possible that some of the subpages will need to be deleted but, since the whole framework has been reworked, it's better to leave them in place for a short while and then let us revisit each subpage once the dust has settled. The major issue here is that the main article Lords Reform is gettting long and hard to read. Some subpages will need to be created but it's not clear at the moment which ones should go.
The primary author is still learning the ways of Wikipedia and is being mentored by a few Wikipedians including myself. He admits that the initial article was "crap" but I think you will agree that the current article is worthy of retention and simply needs improvement. I think this could be developed into an FA candidate eventually.

--Richard 16:14, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note -- I apologise for wasted everyone's time and getting so upset. I've put the contentious work on User:LordsReform where I, or anyone else who would like to help, can work on it. Having got some kind of initial framework, I'm now populating it with some facts, there are well over 1500 documents to check through (though most are very short, except for a dozen main ones), I'd like to see something "authorative" by End of October 2006. Any help, even someone who would pop in and give us a few hints on style etc. from time to time, would be appreciated!

Mike 09:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fairly POV and unsourced. Seems to be original research. eaolson 01:31, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Per Fan-1967 below, I'm adding the following to this AfD:
Also adding:
-- Fan-1967 02:05, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Adding:
— NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 21:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • There is good and accurate stuff in all of these articels, but much that is opinionated and unsourced - a pity because much of it can be sourced. I would keep Lords Reform and look at whether others can be merged or tidied. Emeraude 11:26, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all except Lords Reform, and then we need to reconstruct that article from the ground up. Lords reform is a very encyclopaedic subject and deserves a proper article. David | Talk 13:02, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am sick and tired of the hypocracy on Wikipedia. Of course an article about reform of the House of Lords is going to contain opinions and original research because the whole reform process consists of a series of debates about opinions. These pages have not been on a day and I was up to 3am yesterday working to get them into some sort of order before you vultures started picking at the carcass. Where is the tolerance that Wikipedia tells everyone about?

Having set out a template, I was just about to start going through the 1000 different responses to the consultations. I have complained in the past that there is no means (as far as I am aware) to create a trial version and invite comments.

The issue of Lords reform is incredibly complex and given the huge number of views it simply is not possible to explain the issue in one page. I know even less about Wikipedia except its pretended policy of "welcoming everyone" which it does not.

How can some of you be serious. 1000 different people spent days, if not weeks putting together their consultation responses, hundreds of MPs over decades if not centuries have put in huge amounts of time, it is one of the highest profile issues in the UK, and all you can say is "delete it". I'd have some respect for what you said if one of you had actually offered to help make the article more acceptable.Mike Haseler

Comment You misunderstand. It's original research and opinions because they're exclusively your opinions and research. An encyclopedia is a tertiary source and should collect the opinions and research of others (with references) into a comprehensive whole. Also, "tolerance" does not mean we sit back and let you do whatever you want. If you want us to establish a compromise position with you, then you shall have to engage us in debate. I would've though you'd know that given your expertise in politics. Sockatume 13:50, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Furthermore, there are plenty of established ways to present trial articles for comment. The most obvious would be to put the article together in your namespace and then find the appropriate forum, via the Community Portal, to ask for comments. Sockatume 13:51, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. Interesting and significant issue, but the articles are all original research written in patently unencylopedic style. Wikipedia is not a textbook! Sockatume 13:30, 30 September 2006 (UTC) [reply]

    • Transwiki. Thinking about it, surely Wikibooks has a politics textbook which would benefit from this? Sockatume 13:44, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The comment that "there are plenty of ways to trial it" is news to me.... but then my only other real experience of Wikipedia when when a bunch of thugs jumped on me last time when I started an article on "incrementalism". I ask myself, is it worth carrying on editing these pages or will they be deleted however informative I make them? At the moment I'm inclined to ignore some of the less informed comments and try to make something on it, but if I'm wrong then please email me now because I've got plenty of other things I could do with my time!

Mike Haseler

Comment. Well, if you don't join the community, you can't expect to find out about these things. Being productive on the Wikipedia is about more than producing a lot of material - engaging with the other editors, particularly over controvertial articles, is incredibly important. Acting as though the Wikipedia "Edit This Page" button is a videogame and your goal is to get your version of the article in place is not effective. You should be spending a considerable proportion of your time debating the direction of articles on Talk pages and User Talk pages. Sockatume 14:18, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment.This is not a controversal article, as far as I'm aware there have only been three contributors and none of them have disagreed. You are making a controversy where there is none. And I take great exception to your comment: using "Edit This Page" button is a videogame. In fact I haven't a clue what you are talking about! I will restate my position. The Lords is one of the oldest institutions in the World. Reform of the Lords is one of the highest profile issues for the UK government. I apologise that I am not an expert at Wikipedia, indeed, I would love people more informed than me to add to the page, but if this subject can't be included in the encylopedia section of Wiki, then what is the point of it? Mike Haseler (And How does everyone else get that user-time stamp?
Comment Is there anyone willing to talk to me offline rather than engage in a slanging match here? Mike Haseler
Comment As an article which is providing informaton on the process of reform; a reform that is largely dictated by the opinions of those involved, it is inevitable that much of it will be reporting of opinions. I have had the dubious pleasure of reading many of the contributions and talking to quite a few MPs and Lords involved, I am will try to provide information on the range of opinions. I am trying to represent these as fairly and neutrally as possible (although regretably I've had to copy and paste some stuff to at least get a start) so for the meanwhilst, some of it is quite obviously my own opinion of the situation, but unless there is something there to edit, how can others make their contribution and so arrive at a mutually agreed consenus?
Comment. And I take great exception to your comment: using "Edit This Page" button is a videogame. In fact I haven't a clue what you are talking about! That's surprising considering I elaborated upon the point in the following sentence. To reiterate: at this stage you aren't making an effort to react to our criticisms (it doesn't read like an encyclopedia article, for example) beyond the blanket statement that this is an important issue. It is important when facing a conflict of opinion on the Wikipedia that you sit down and discuss it thoroughly with the other editors. Judging from your previous comments (the sense of being "jumped on" when starting a new article, and the "me against he world" tone you've taken here), this is something you were unaware of.
We agree that it's an important issue, hence the concensus to keep the central article. However the issue is not presented in a thoroughly referenced, encyclopedic manner. It is written like a collection of sections from a textbook or perhaps primer on the subject. It reads like somebody's original research and commentary, in other words. Sockatume 18:11, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, Wikipedia is not a soapbox/a webhost/a publisher of original research and so on and so on.. --Charlesknight 23:20, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Marker[edit]

Can I thank the person who added the comments to the article - that was very helpfull. If anyone has tried to contact me, I've not received it, if no one has bothered to respond to my request for help and advice .... all I can say is I hope you all choke on the carcass of this article!ImpeachMe 19:31, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sockatume, I tried to email you. I got to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sockatume where's the "how to contact mr X?" I've never in my life every encountered such as hostile community as Wikipedia. Please forgive if I'm sounding grumpy, there is nothing so infuriating as having half finished work torn to shreads because it .... isn't finished. And then sitting here wondering whether it is both bothering to finish it. And now all I'm doing is talking to myself like some madman!ImpeachMe 19:52, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have just received an email from an expert in this area, whose input would be extremely valuable. To summaris, they've seen the "this site will be deleted" and have decided to use their time more profitably ... thankyou very much! ImpeachMe 22:20, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Topic worthy of an article As someone who worked on this article some time ago, I can only say that I tried to include a neutral summary of some of the history and the issues involved in reform. I certainly referred to the Parliament Act 1911. As I was providing background for an article which I take to be mostly about the attempts of the Blair government to reform the House of Lords, I did not go into a lot of detail anout the history but I tried to be reasonably comprehensive. I think that the constitutional crisis leading up to the Parliament Act 1911 is an important historical topic but not central to the contemporary issues.

When I looked at Haseler's work on the main Lords Reform article yesterday I was impressed by it. I did not see the problems described in the comments above.

In summary I think the issue of Lords reform is an important topic in current British politics. There ought to be an article about it, setting out enough history for the non specialist to grasp what is being argued about. The options for reform which have been proposed should be summarised.

I suggest rather than just sweeping away all that has been done before (good, bad or indifferent as it may be), it would be helpful if those who object point to the specific passages they consider to infringe the policies on Neutral POV, lack of sourcing and original research etc. These points can then be examined in detail and if the complaint is found justified the existing text can be corrected so it does comply with applicable policies. I am willing to assist with such an effort. --Gary J 23:50, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see some of the historical information about pre-1977 reforms I inserted originally, has been moved from the main article since I saw it yesterday. It is fair to say that is not in itself a complete treatment of the history, nor is it sourced. It was designed to be a section of a larger whole not an independent article. I presume Haseler was going to get around to expanding it later, but perhaps it will assist the community if I do some work on it, to see if something can be produced which is acceptable. --Gary J 00:09, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some specific examples for Lords Reform - Democratic Appointments:
  1. "Democratically Appointed Lords is a proposal to Reform the UK House of Lords..." Proposed by whom? Is Wikipedia the only place this proposal has been put forth? If so, it's original research.
  2. "With a jury of 15 and perhaps 10 permanent staff, the running costs would be around £2.5 million per year for the jury." Where did this number come from? Is it valid?
  • For Lords Refrom - Allotment:
  1. Again, where did the proposal come from? Who is doing the proposing?
  2. "In democracy the people are supreme and the politicians are there to serve the people. By voting for politicians we pick the House of Commons on merit and by its nature this makes it literally undermocratic. An upper chamber does not need to have a mandate to govern, and therefore selection by lot is the best way to make it democratic." This is POV. The best way? If this is unambiguously the best way, why are other proposals being considered?
  3. I also just noticed that there is a typo in the article title. "Refrom" instead of "Reform"
  • Lords Reform - Roles
  1. This whole article is very clearly original research.
  2. Explanations by analogy (which is most of the article) are inherently inexact, and not particularly encyclopedic.
eaolson 19:30, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all dreadful —Mets501 (talk) 19:32, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the points about the varioius proposals. They are not single proposals but intended to be summaries of the range of proposal that have been verifyably put forward. All you need to do is read all the proposals on the department of constitution web site, read all the speaches made in parliament. The problem is that the average person doesn't know where to look. If they want to know what proposals have been put forward, they need a summary and that I expect to find in Wikipedia. Mike 20:47, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Eaolson Thanks for the comments - they were mostly helpful and in the main I accept them and have made some changes (but I'm struggling, and I'm supposed to be working next week). For details see the comments on the talk pages for each of page. I've requested help in several places, and so far your comments are the only help we have received!Mike 21:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Lords Reform but delete all the subpages. In my opinion, "badly written" is not grounds for deletion, but rather a reason for revising the page. Lords Reform is a topic that certainly merits a Wikipedia article. The many subpages, however, are duplicative, largely original research, and simply unnecessary. --Russ (talk) 12:18, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I feel so bad voting delete but such a good intention for an article is dripping in POV. This article is unquestionably worthy of an article but this is not the way to do it. doktorb wordsdeeds 16:07, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Someone is taking the micky In a few days, I might have had the time to get this article ready for some comment, giving me a relaxed 5 days responding to any criticisms. I can't do what is required in the time - there literally isn't time - Well done! I give up! Mike 18:37, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Lords reform is a perfectly sensible topic to write about, and there is plenty of third party comment to use as sources without delving into original research, but this seems to be a rather ambitious programme! It may be easier to try to write one article at a time, and split off sections into subarticles when they get long enough. I think the current content in the sub-articles should be merged into the parent article, and perhaps Reform of the House of Lords would be a better title. Having said that, I'm not sure I would start from here... -- ALoan (Talk) 19:36, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close this AfD as void. The main article is not nominated anymore, various subpages have been added, several apparently deleted as per the author's request, initial comments do not reflect the status of this AfD anymore ... I believe the process has derailed here. I suggest an admin closes this AfD as void. Individual subpages can be relisted individually if necessary. Equendil Talk 19:56, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Seconded. Lankiveil 12:25, 5 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]
    • Comment Why not just kill off the remaining subpages right now? Haseler's already removed most of the content from the surviving pages, there's no need to renominate them individually if he doesn't want them any more. NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 21:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE. The lords reform article is a mess, it's not written in a wikipedia-like tone or manual of style or guide to layout or well, it's basically a whole jumble of mess that looks like someone vandalized. Also per IslaySolomon, Opabinia regalis, Sandstein and physicq210 It's DEFINITE DELETE!!! I found the article after stumbling onto three empty articles when stub sorting: Lords Reform - Proposals; Lords Reform - Aims; Lords Reform - Roles which was emptied by User:LordsReform. I don't know if it constitutes as blanking or vandalism since it was (after digging around) I suppose was for a rewrite of the Lords reform series. But it is unwikipedia-like to leave articles like that with improper redirect. Which I think the three articles doesn't even worthy the redirect. (per redirect policy) Also, I would like to rais the issue of User talk:LordsReform's purpose of moving the article onto his/her userpage as it is an irregular wikipedia practice. Also, could someone cleanup this afd? Feureau 22:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Help is much appreciated!Mike 11:54, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is NOT irregular Wikipedia practice to move an article to User space. In fact, the action Userfy is a recommendation that shows up from time to time in AFD debates. In this case, the author User:Haseler was advised to move articles that were "not ready for primetime" to User space. So, he created a separate user account User:LordsReform and moved the articles there. The creation of a separate user account for this purpose is not ideal. It would have been better to move the articles to subpages of User:Haseler but Haseler, being a new Wikipedian, misinterpreted the suggestion. He is working on a new article in User:LordsReform/New which he has created as a sandbox. --Richard 22:52, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Russ above. Subpages should go though. Lankiveil 05:13, 5 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]
    • Comment, to clarify, the main article does need cleanup, but I don't see why it's not worthy of an article. POV and poor formatting is not grounds for deletion, as far as I am aware. Lankiveil 12:20, 5 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Strong Keep Topic is encyclopedic. I can't tell what the original article looked like but the current article shows a lot of promise. It needs cleanup, wikifying and sourcing but all that can be fixed with time. Article creator seems to be a relatively new Wikipedian with good intentions but in need of some coaching. I volunteer. --Richard 06:06, 6 October 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lords_Reform&oldid=1138033910"