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. Drmies (talk) 18:09, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Welsh Devolution[edit]

Welsh Devolution (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)

Article is cobbled together from various bits and pieces of Welsh history, but they do not add up to an article about "devolution", which is a somewhat technical term--and as the very first reference makes clear, that process as such started in 1999. Treating the entire history of Wales as a prelude to this recent phenomenon is a violation of SYNTH. This article is redundant to Devolution_in_the_United_Kingdom#Wales, and the links in there. Drmies (talk) 02:36, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I have just deleted a large section of the page which is perhaps not as relevant, like you say to the title of "Welsh Devolution". I feel that the content of the page is much more fitting of the title. Thank you for drawing my attention to this. The content of the page now fits the title well so please do not consider deleting. I have worked very hard on this. Thank you for your time.TG11TG15 (talk) 02:59, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Quite flabbergasted by this one. Obviously this is a very notable topic that should be covered in it's own article. AFD is not clean-up nor is Welsh devolution an idea that started in 1999. John Gilbert Evans wrote two books detailing the history of Welsh devolution from 1937-1998 [1], [2]. The topic has been also been covered extensively in other academic literature: [3] [4] [5]. Per WP:THREE, I'll leave it at those examples so as not to waste people's time. Vladimir.copic (talk) 03:40, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep an acceptable SPINOFF from Devolution in the United Kingdom#Wales on the basis of summary style: the UK devolution page is a broader overview article, and doesn't/shouldn't cover Welsh devolution in the depth a stand-alone article can. Stumbled across this by accident as I reverted the original creator's edits to a different article. Most of the remaining C18/19th section looks relevant, as does nearly everything from 1949 onwards, and it carves out a content niche not directly covered elsewhere. Clean-up is required, but there's plenty of potential for future expansion. I don't believe it meets the threshold for WP:TNT. Jr8825 • Talk 04:30, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the previous two arguments (and also rather surprised this would be nominated). I would actually restore some of the material up to the early modern period sections that established Wales as legally part of "England" and the suppression of the Welsh language, at least as some kind of short summary of the starting position. At the moment, it seems like Wales appeared out of nowhere, or was always legally part of England.OsFish (talk) 04:47, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep - easily notable. BilledMammal (talk) 06:34, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:48, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:48, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:51, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I appreciate the constructive comments. Please feel free helping me out with tidying the article up or giving me any further recommendations for improvement.TG11TG15 (talk) 11:53, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I have added prehistoric and medieval headings with brief summaries as per feedback. Any other suggestions? Thank youTG11TG15 (talk) 12:41, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's clear from Special:Diff/1069182402 versus Wales#Roman era (Special:PermanentLink/842435878#Roman era) and Special:Diff/1069186134 versus Special:Diff/1050873964 (Welsh independence#21st century), to name just two, that you are copying within Wikipedia without attribution. Shuffling about already-written content from other people does not help to make a case that this is an original article on an as-yet-uncovered subject, and belies your claim to have "worked very hard". As someone who has written articles from scratch, I can assure you that what you are doing is a far cry from working very hard. You are passing off other people's work as your own. You've not been putting in any work at all.

    This probably explains these, which I noticed first:

    • Only capitalize proper nouns. wikt:devolution
    • Always give the page number when citing books.
    • Including the Roman Empire but missing out the Wales Act 1978, the Kilbrandon Commission, and the 1979 Welsh devolution referendum is not following the scholarship of legal/political experts on the subject, who all start by at least summarizing them.
    • Read some books:
      • Williams, David (1998). "Devolution: The Welsh perspective". In Beatson, J. (ed.). Constitutional Reform in the United Kingdom: Practice and Principles. Hart Publishing. ISBN 9781901362848.
      • Williams, David (1975). "Wales and Legislative Devolution". In Calvert, Harry (ed.). Devolution. Professional Books.
      • Foulkes, David Llewhelin; Jones, James Barry; Wilford, Rick; Foulkes, J. Barry, eds. (1983). The Welsh Veto: The Wales Act 1978 and the Referendum. University of Wales Press. ISBN 9780708308318.
      • Bogdanor, Vernon (2001). "Wales". Devolution in the United Kingdom. Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780192801289.
  • Uncle G (talk) 13:32, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Apologies for not citing the previous authors. I was not aware the wikipedia authors were cited. I assumed that article reference only was required. I'll avoid this in future. Thanks for pointing out. TG11TG15 (talk) 13:55, 1 February 2022 (UTC) I'll just contribute from scratch from now on. TG11TG15 (talk) 13:58, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think the first thing you need to do here is decide if "Welsh devolution" is a thing that started in 1999 or not, and adjust your sourcing accordingly. And what is "Devolution from the Romans"? Maximus just left--your source says nothing about him "devolving" anything. And that's the problem I have with the article: as far as I'm concerned, 90% of it has nothing to do with any kind of devolution--it's simply the history of Wales as an area/nation/state/whatever. User:Jr8825 says that the "larger" (UK) article needn't go into all the detail, and that may be true--but the current article doesn't do that either, it just pulls in anything. Drmies (talk) 17:22, 1 February 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.