Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:56, 1 March 2014

Celtic nations

Celtic nations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

I propose to delete this article because of content forking. There is a more appropriate article for the subject (Celts (modern)). Fakirbakir (talk) 21:18, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Delete: (merge what's acceptable but isn't merged already) It's also what I call a 'Wikipediaism' - something promoted by Wikipedians, if not pretty much invented by them. It's historically fluff as a term. There was no such thing as 'Celtic nations' when the Celts were around, and they cannot be called 'Celtic' now in any properly academic sense: at most it's a candy word for sports games, historical events and the like. But these endless sub articles just get forked with all kinds contentious politics. I think this article just happens to suit various nationalists in here who want these places to be sovereign countries, and it appears to me that they are largely the people who frequent this page. A section on modern Celtic ancestry should be enough for any properly academic encyclopedia in my view. (ie in the actual Celts article - but this should be deleted all the same, as I argued on the talk page a year or so ago). Matt Lewis (talk) 22:30, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Keep: The two articles are about two different things. One is about the political territories in Europe, the other is about the ethnic (i.e. cultural) group that includes those living in other parts of the world, such as the Welsh language community in Patagonia. Bodrugan (talk) 02:40, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

You are 'Cornish' though. The idea of that being a 'Celtic nation' is just romantic. It's not encyclopedic enough for it's own page - none of it is. It's too political, and it's not historically accurate enough. Celts did not have nations, and Cornwall is not a nation now. Matt Lewis (talk) 13:28, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

keep-merge, Fakirbakir, what are you up to? There are naming issues here, but the way to resolve them is not deleting articles left and right, the solution is coming up with decent proposals for re-arranging the topic and then convincing people to implement it via WP:BRD. Don't try to resolve complex questions of content via the deletion process, it isn't the appropriate tool. --dab (𒁳) 09:25, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

It was brought to talk last year but no debate happened at all. Everyone who attends the article wants the article that's why. That's partly why WP has have 'AfD'. It's not complex at all imo, it's actually quite simple. There too much forked subs in these areas, and each sub article get's less and leas encyclopedic. Sections in the main article's are fine. I personally think that Modern Celts is an article too much, and I'm 'supposed' to be one! (it's funny how I don't feel very different to anyone else though, and have no desire to forge iron objects at all). Matt Lewis (talk) 13:28, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Answering the question, I just try to stir up the still water. Somebody creates a FORK and due to the well sourced text the article becomes unmovable. As I see no one really cares about the future of these articles. Fakirbakir (talk) 13:41, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I think a fair amount of people will want to keep this one, and it will be interesting to see how many other people think it's too unencyclopedic, or an article too many. Ie how many people still support the old inclusionist 'Wikiepdia is infinite ideal = ie let 'everyone have their say'. The simple forking argument may not count here, as people will argue that this group of Celtic nations actually exist. But the idea has no authority at all though. No sovereign, or UN or European recognition as such or anything like that. It's all romantic at best, and to this extended broad degree it's political (ie they support each others causes, as minority separatists always do). They don't have the sources that cover this extended use either: not outside of partisan websites. Matt Lewis (talk) 13:56, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Keep (don't delete): Agree with Bodrugan's comment, Celts(modern) is concerned with Celtic Identity in modern times (Modern Celtic culture).Jembana (talk) 09:55, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

The thing is, you have a user-page thing saying your "proud to be Celtic". That's absolutely fine. But an article called 'Celtic nations' is essentially a third-level sub article, and isn't ok at all. It just makes Misplaced Pages look a bloated and decidedly non-academic mess imo. Even as a 'notable term' (which I don't think it is personally) areas like Welsh TV news programmes - which can be quite nationally 'proud' overall - do not normally refer to any of these nations as 'Celtic nations' - and only Wales in terms of 'home nation' sport like Rugby. It's a article section stuff, not own-artile stuff. And when they use do use the term, they are not pronouncing on France or Cornwall etc at all. That's an important point to: it's no used politically at all. It's intrinsically political in here, hence all the forked politics. The forking will always happen in pages like this. This article is basically yet another article on Celts (or Modern Celts if we have to have that too), but with a specifically 'nation'alistic flavour. Matt Lewis (talk) 13:47, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

• AfD debates (Science and technology)
• AfD debates