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The result was speedy keep (nomination withdrawn; non-admin closure). StAnselm (talk) 23:11, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Invasions of the British Isles (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)

This might seem a strange candidate for deletion, as it appears at first glance notable (and I, the nominator, was its original creator). However, I am wondering if this article is unsustainable and unnecessary in its present form. It, as a topic, does not appear to have been covered explicitly by the sources mentioned; it could be deleted, with the various "notable" sections turned into separate articles. For example, "Invasions during the Hundred Years War" would be better as a standalone than as a part of this article. dci | TALK 01:08, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It seems to me that the sources cover the topic explicitly, as evidenced by some of their titles. The topic is notable due to the dearth of quotes about "defending the island" and "never invaded". Deleting and taking the parts of the article to make more smaller ones seems like a bad idea to me because of the possible ambiguity (i.e. Invasions during the Hundred Years War and Hundred Years War, wasn't the whole war simply invasions and counterattacks/counterinvasions?). Really hope I'm making sense here. Buggie111 (talk) 01:47, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I get your point. Mine, however, is this: "Invasions of the United States" would be notable as the US, as a country, has always been an entity that can be invaded with some, if you will, consistency. As can some place like France, which has existed as a concept for 1,200 years (or something like that). But the "British Isles" only started being thought of as a single concept a few centuries ago, with invasions before then being directed at individual islands. For example, take another European country, Spain. Invasions from Aragon into Granada or from Cordoba into Valencia, during the fragmentation of the Reconquista, wouldn't be much like the French invasion of Spain, a distinct concept as a nation-state, under Napoleon. I disagreed with the view I present here when I created the initial version of the article, but seeing what it's become, I can't help but hope for a different way to present the info. Sorry for the excessive length of the post! dci | TALK 02:02, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • And I, in turn, see what you mean. But as I stated above, the boatload of "Britain has never been invaded" blah blah blah really helps the notability situation here. If this was a country like, umm, the Philippines, then I'd agree with you. But I stand by my original beliefs. Buggie111 (talk) 02:10, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I suppose you're correct about the "never-invaded" fallacies, but I still stand by my own arguments above. dci | TALK 02:16, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The topic is notable. See Invasion: From the Armada to Hitler, 1588-1945, for example. Warden (talk) 07:41, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or Divide. The role of invasions in shaping the British Isles can't be doubted, and the idea that "England hasn't been invaded since 1066" is a popular myth, so the notability angle is covered, as has already been said. We are also dealing with a geographical entity, not a political one, for the whole of the time period currently covered, so arguments based on national boundaries are weakened. However, the article does struggle in terms of its current divisions in that some are stronger than others - there is little in the Irish section for example, or the Welsh. These might be strengthened as stand alone articles i.e. by dividing the topic into invasions of England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales. This does lose some overview e.g. of the Viking invasions but may help national editors to get involved in their own sections, if they are put off by the concept of "British Isles". Monstrelet (talk) 08:40, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but radically prune, listify or otherwise improve as article seems both confused about its remit and somewhat partial. The main problems are: firstly the inclusion of events that are not "Invasions of the British Isles" but rather wars between parties within the British isles e.g. Battle of Flodden, Wars of the Roses, Rough Wooing and secondly the absence of events such as the Viking invasions of Ireland and a few smaller ones like the Battle of Glen Shiel. Those in the first category should either be removed, or alternatively the lead should be amended and the name of the article changed. Less crucially or surprisingly the text is somewhat anglocentric e.g. the Roman section, which fails to even mention Caledonia. Ben MacDui 09:12, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the above should be better debated on the article's talk page. For example, invasions within as opposed to from outside the British Isles is a definitional issue. As to Glen Shiel, entirely correct but the article currently only runs up to 1560, so there are a pile of other examples to add if the article were to be extended. Also agree on the Anglocentricity, though feel that applies more acutely to the Welsh and Irish elementMonstrelet (talk) 11:30, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I understand nom's doubts, but the article can be kept as a list - it has well-defined criteria, excellent sources, and is certainly of interest. If nom would like to rename it "List of invasions of the British Isles" (or, ...of Britain, not the same thing, it'd be a different list) which nom might feel more comfortable with, then I'd support that. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:49, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Notable and encyclopedic subject covered by multiple secondary sources. The article may need to be cleaned up, as per Ben MacDui's suggestions.--xanchester (t) 21:42, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I will reluctantly withdraw my deletion nomination. I understand that most of those who supported keeping the article have valid concerns that it is too notable or encyclopedic to qualify for deletion. However, I really don't think that it, especially as it currently stands, is helpful or necessary for a reader. I will post my further opinions on the article talk page. Again, I am not endorsing keeping the article, but the consensus is definitely not to delete. dci | TALK 22:33, 29 October 2012 (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.