Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Banburyshire

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 merge to Banbury. ‑Scottywong| spout _ 05:35, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Banburyshire[edit]

Banburyshire (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)

Non-official area with coverage mainly in tourist information. Only 137 unique Google hits (including Wikipedia and YouTube), so fails WP:GNG. The Banner talk 11:06, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CommentDelete or Merge - Not sure that Ghits prove anything much - 3 good ones would likely settle the matter. However, this article has little going for it, especially since it's attempting to make something of the informal designation -- basically it's just a DicDef, the word was loosely used in such a way, once upon a time. On the other hand, if there is a merge target (Informal regions of England or something) then there'd surely be enough notability, given the number of such 'shires'. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:58, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The topic is notable as there are multiple books about it including:

1. Discovering Banburyshire;
2. Banburyshire in Old Photographs;
3. Villages of Banburyshire;
4. The Pathways of Banburyshire;
5. Roman Banburyshire;
6. Over the Hills to Glory: radicalism in Banburyshire 1832-1945

Its status in modern officialdom is irrelevant as Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Andrew (talk) 09:54, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The weakness of the topic is nothing to do with Wikipedia's constitution, bureaucratic or otherwise. The 'books', named already in the article, are unfortunately weak evidence, given their tourism POV and the basically MADEUP nature of the supposed 'shire'. An article on the making-up of pseudo-counties could have merit; the pushing of specific areas for doubtful ends has much less. The Romans, for example, knew nothing whatever of 'Bunburyshire': the title is an absurd piece of notability manufacture (long before Wikipedia). Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:47, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• You seem to be the one making things up here as there seems to be no basis in policy for sneering at these books. I would characterise them as being about local history myself but their category seems irrelevant to the issue of notability because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and so covers all types of topic, not just local government. Note that the existence of Banburyshire as a concept seems reasonably well-recognised in more academic works such as The English Peasantry and the Growth of Lordship, where it is characterised as a 'small scir'. Andrew (talk) 12:01, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Please avoid personal accusations. Where books push an author's point of view, especially if there is a hint of commerce such as tourism about it, it is reasonable to doubt their reliability. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:59, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Please produce some evidence to support these insinuations. The books all seem quite satisfactory as sources. Andrew (talk) 14:21, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your number 1, 2, 3 and 4 are clearly linked to tourism. Your number 5 is likely to be tourism promotion, as in Roman times there was no Banburyshire. The Banner talk 23:17, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• No. Source 1 is linked to tourism being published by the Banburyshire Tourism Association. Source 2 is published by Sutton and is not tourism but is instead local history. Source 3 is more local history. Source 4 is not at all clear because it was published in 1900 and its exact contents are not explained online. Source 5 is yet more local history. Source 6 you don't mention - presumably because it is so clearly nothing at all to do with tourism. So, your claim seems to be quite false. And it is quite irrelevant because it doesn't matter exactly why these sources were written - tourism, history, topography, whatever. The point is that we have numerous sources about the region and this demonstrates the notability of the topic. You have yet to produce any policy-based reason to delete this notable topic and seem to be relying upon inaccurate guesswork and prejudice. My !vote stands. Andrew (talk) 00:14, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Selective merge some of the reliably sourced material to Banbury. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This informal term for the area served by the market town of Banbury has a verifiable history of usage back to the 19th century, but what else is there to say about it beyond that that? Nothing, in my view, that isn't better located in another article, most likely the one on Banbury or perhaps History of Banbury. The current lead of Banburyshire says much the same as the last para of the lead of Banbury that already mentions this term (but currently lacks refs, which could be added). Of the 'Location' section, the first para could belong equally well in the Banbury article, while the rest of the section has no reliable sources. Qwfp (talk) 12:42, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to Banbury. Several books use the term in their title but not worth a standalone article.--Charles (talk) 19:32, 9 February 2014 (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.