Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Welsh Devolution

Welsh Devolution

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(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]