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 delete. The "keep" minority don't address the arguments raised in the nomination and by the "delete" opinions, i.e., that this article duplicates other (and better) articles, which our policies say is to be avoided (WP:CFORK). They do not attempt to make the argument that this particular topic can be usefully distinguished from the other mentioned articles, or is treated as a distinct topic in reliable sources. Sandstein 09:28, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Politics in the British Isles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

This hopeless POVfork, essentially abandoned since 2012, straddles three content areas: Politics of the United Kingdom, Politics of the Republic of Ireland, and Politics of Ireland. All three of those articles are superior to this article. Previous AfDs in 2012 and 2015 didn't reach consensus to delete, but the article remains fundamentally unimproved and, in my view, unimprovable owing to the intractability of the ongoing content disputes about Northern Ireland. My attempt to disambiguate was reverted. Please will the community decide what to do about this? —S Marshall T/C 09:57, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —S Marshall T/C 09:57, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but trim unnecessary content and rename, perhaps to Intergovernmental relationships within the British Isles - which are complex, and need an umbrella article such as (but better than) this. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:22, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Bad quality of an article is not a reason for destroying an article but for improvement of said article. Just blunt replacing the article by a disambiguation page is not the way it works. The Banner talk 10:32, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:38, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:38, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - hopelessly bad article, bin it now. Would support turning into a disambiguation page. Spleodrach (talk) 14:10, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete there may be space for a good article on this topic but this isn't it. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:13, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the material is all covered in the other articles as indicated by the nominator. This just artificially creates a non existent political entity and then tries to explain the politics in it (note there is no politics “of” the British Isles). This is like having an article on “politics in the Rift Valley countries” and then re-explaining stuff about Ethiopia, Kenya and Djibouti which is already covered in articles about those countries. Or “politics in the Danube basin (Romania, Hungary, Serbia...). The problem is the basic paradigm of ‘politics in a geographical (rather than a political) entity.” Mccapra (talk) 14:26, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete These main articles, as well as Ireland–United Kingdom relations, are much better and I don't see the purpose to the synthesis here. Reywas92^Talk 17:49, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The British Isles existed before there was such a concept as Ireland-United Kingdom relations, and before there was a United Kingdom. Peter James (talk) 16:37, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this is just duplicative to no purpose. As Reywas92 states, we already have this topic covered at the main articles and Ireland–United Kingdom relations. Trying to tie a political topic to a geographic entity is meaningless. Laplorfill (talk) 01:07, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is a geographic entity which was almost identical to a country at one time (the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland), and before then what is now the United Kingdom wasn't all one country. Peter James (talk) 16:55, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, and maybe convert to a disambig. There just isn't anything coherent to write here, mainly for reasons outlined by Mccapra. Vaticidalprophet 12:58, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It isn't ambiguous. The United Kingdom isn't called British Isles. The Republic of Ireland isn't called British Isles. Peter James (talk) 16:37, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - deletion is not an improvement. I'd say work on the content. XavierItzm (talk) 20:22, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Mccapra said it well. Neutrality^talk 03:10, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, for reasons given by Mccapra. Athel cb (talk) 07:18, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Redirect to British Isles, which has a politics section; not all of the content is bad and it shouldn't be rejected just because of which article it was added to. Peter James (talk) 16:37, 18 April 2021 (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.