Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Irish head of state from 1936 to 1949

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. L Faraone 04:26, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Irish head of state from 1936 to 1949

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

The article is original research from beginning to end. Despite being tagged since March 2008, no references have ever been supplied. It contains no factual information that cannot be found in Irish Free State or Republic of Ireland Act 1948. --Scolaire (talk) 08:43, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as OR. Not the subject of separate study that I can see. Dmcq (talk) 09:32, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Deletion is over the top. Why not just WP:FIXIT? Possibly the title itself is a problem. The article really is on the unresolved issues between the External Relations Act and the Republic of Ireland Act. Was Ireland a republic? Who was the head of state? It was an issue at the time (cf. De Valera's "dictionary republic"). It's a valid topic for an encyclopaedia and there are plenty of sources around it. --RA (talk) 10:16, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- If somebody is willing to fix it, fine. But I don't see any mad rush to do so. The problem is not with the title per se, but with the contention that "the exact constitutional status of the state during this period has been a matter of scholarly and political dispute." No doubt there are plenty of sources "around it", but where are the specific refs for this apparently well-known academic/political dispute? Bear in mind the article has been tagged for five years without a single source being produced. Scolaire (talk) 20:19, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Frenchmalawi (talk) 13:46, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep anyone with a basic understanding of the cessation of the Republic of Ireland from the United Kingdom and Irish identity politics realises that this is of consequence. Just because the topic is also covered elsewhere doesn't make it deletable. Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:29, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. jonkerz ♠talk 18:29, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. jonkerz ♠talk 18:30, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Not an encyclopedic subject. Content of the article might be if renamed, although I suspect a POV fork here. Carrite (talk) 00:53, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Most definitely an encyclopedic subject and very useful to those who study that period of Anglo Irish history.Gavin Lisburn (talk) 12:27, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appropriate subject matter. DrKiernan (talk) 09:21, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. By its very nature this material doesn't fit into either the Irish Free State or Republic of Ireland articles. --Jfruh (talk) 11:50, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- On the contrary, it is specifically dealt with in Republic of Ireland#1937 Constitution (besides the in-depth treatment of the subject in Republic of Ireland Act 1948). The Irish Free State article is very poorly written, but there's no reason why this material should not fit there. Scolaire (talk) 17:21, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: none of the "keeps" so far has addressed the essential question of inherent notability per WP:GNG: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list..."Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." The single ref that has now been added is not to a source that addresses the subject directly in detail. Scolaire (talk) 17:41, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that finding substantial material on the narrow topic of "Irish head of state from 1936 to 1949" would be small. There's little really to say about it except that it is ambiguous. But that ambiguity (rather than the narrow question of head of state), the causes of it, its effects and eventual resolution, is a fairly well treated topic. There is no obvious title for that ambiguity.

The article could be called, Was Ireland a republic in the years 1936 to 1949?. Or, Relationship between the Irish state and the British monarchy, 1936 to 1949. Or Role of the monarchy in Ireland between the entry into force of the External Relations Act 1936 and the Republic of Ireland Act 1949. Basically, I think an move would address your concerns - but neither do I think one is necessary. The current title is not ideal, but looking at policy on titiles, I think it may be best. --RA (talk) 19:32, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 16:20, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 17:56, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Its content is certainly notable. It expands in an encyclopedic manner information touched on elsewhere. It should be retained unless it can be shown that its content has been properly distributed elsewhere, with cross-references and redirects. But preferably, for the use of readers, retain here. Qexigator (talk) 18:02, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm certainly not saying the article is good; it's not. But deletion is the wrong response to that. It does have too much background that could be trimmed and crosslinked. OTOH there is more to be said, for example, about the problems with accreditation of diplomats, especially during World War II. It's misleading to say "It contains no factual information that cannot be found in Irish Free State or Republic of Ireland Act 1948. " The information in question is in the "After the Irish Free State" section of the former and the "Background" section of the latter. What happened in the intervening years is related to both those articles but properly part of neither, so both should have a WP:SUMMARY section of this separate article. I wouldn't object to renaming the article Irish head of state from 1937 to 1949, starting when the Constitution of Ireland took effect, rather than when the Governor-General of the Irish Free State was abolished; but that's a detail. jnestorius^(talk) 21:57, 25 June 2013 (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.