Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/English irredentism

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:18, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

English irredentism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination

)

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

The article in question fails to say anything conclusive or non-discernible about its subject matter. Moreover, what little is said is vague and unclear. This is not helped by shoddy grammar, lack of sources, and the fact that the article is an orphan.

• Note: This discussion has been included in the
  talk) 16:19, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. No significant coverage and lack of sources. --Vaco98 (talk) 16:35, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. In terms of the title, there is nothing to indicate that this term has any broad use or accepted meaning (Meaning both
  WP:GNG apply). In terms of content/purpose, even if we were to keep the title, what would we populate it with (I can't conceive of where it would be redirected, and there are insufficient sources to support any meaningful standalone content). In terms of the topic itself, it makes zero sense to me personally (from a historical, political or geographic point-of-view). In terms of the current text/description of the topic, why would hatred or fear of the Welsh by the English have anything to do with an irredentist claim of England over Ireland? As far as I can see, there is no policy reason (or value to the project) to retain this title or its content. Mine is a firm "delete" recommendation. Guliolopez (talk) 17:54, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - As per the reasons outlined above. There is nothing in the article, which is basically just an extended sentence to suggest notability. Dunarc (talk) 20:36, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unable to find any reliable sources discussing this topic at all. AusLondonder (talk) 17:55, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete None of the reasons given in the nomination are grounds, per se, for deletion; a good faith reminder of
  WP:ARTN, and that AfD is not clean up. However, per Guliolopez and AusLondonder, a lack of reliable sourcing existing to establish notability, certainly is grounds for deletion. Regards,--Goldsztajn (talk) 02:46, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  I was hoping that editors more eloquent than I could present more, for lack of a better word, abstract, reasons for deletion. Luckily,

  talk) 00:41, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Delete The article is a one, run-on sentence stub with zero sourcing. The article reads like it was created on a whim and promptly forgotten.TH1980 (talk) 04:31, 23 April 2022 (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.