This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article has just been created and the hatnote on the Irreligion heading in the Religion in Wales moved from Irreligion in the United Kingdom to here. I am concerned that this may not be the optimal re-organisation of information. Everything currently on this article could easily be (and largely already is) covered in Religion in Wales. That article describes both religion and lack of religion, and that is correct. It is where people will go to look for the subject. Having an article spun out from another just to allow it to be covered without covering the wider concept of diversity of belief looks to me like an obvious POVfork. If that is correct, this should be merged back into Religion in Wales where irreligion has a heading that could easily be expanded with the Welsh context.
Of course that irreligion heading does point to an Irreligion in the United Kingdom article, and although that could also be argued to be a POVfork, that article has the advantage of covering a tradition and history of atheism ( Atheism in the United Kingdom redirects there). It presents useful information. This article could be viable too, by the same token, if there is a particular Welsh tradition of atheism and irreligion, distinct and separate from the UK context. For this, we need some secondary sources. A source saying it has not been covered by historians [1] does not cover it. In fact, that seems to specifically suggest there is not a separate article here. Wikipedia is a tertiary source, and not the place to right great wrongs. What we need is evidence from secondary sources that there is a subject here.
Specifically what will not do is simply copy/pasting chunks from the articles we already had. To be viable as a treatment of this as a subject with WP:SIGCOV in this context, we need sources and treatments. What are they?
References
Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 10:38, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
I don't see a great problem with this new article. It's cited to sources specifically about non-religion in Wales. There's also the precedent of the long-established and undisputed article about the United Kingdom. It may be excessive to include all this info in the Religion in Wales article. Sionk ( talk) 19:27, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Not sure about this one, while it does not seem to have significant coverage at this stage, it is long enough to make a merger back to Religion in Wales a bit excessive and the sources used are related to Wales, although would prefer more development. Content here can be added to the UK article if there are concerns over its anglo-centricity. Overall neutral and waiting to see any further development of this article. Dank Jae 01:28, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article has just been created and the hatnote on the Irreligion heading in the Religion in Wales moved from Irreligion in the United Kingdom to here. I am concerned that this may not be the optimal re-organisation of information. Everything currently on this article could easily be (and largely already is) covered in Religion in Wales. That article describes both religion and lack of religion, and that is correct. It is where people will go to look for the subject. Having an article spun out from another just to allow it to be covered without covering the wider concept of diversity of belief looks to me like an obvious POVfork. If that is correct, this should be merged back into Religion in Wales where irreligion has a heading that could easily be expanded with the Welsh context.
Of course that irreligion heading does point to an Irreligion in the United Kingdom article, and although that could also be argued to be a POVfork, that article has the advantage of covering a tradition and history of atheism ( Atheism in the United Kingdom redirects there). It presents useful information. This article could be viable too, by the same token, if there is a particular Welsh tradition of atheism and irreligion, distinct and separate from the UK context. For this, we need some secondary sources. A source saying it has not been covered by historians [1] does not cover it. In fact, that seems to specifically suggest there is not a separate article here. Wikipedia is a tertiary source, and not the place to right great wrongs. What we need is evidence from secondary sources that there is a subject here.
Specifically what will not do is simply copy/pasting chunks from the articles we already had. To be viable as a treatment of this as a subject with WP:SIGCOV in this context, we need sources and treatments. What are they?
References
Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 10:38, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
I don't see a great problem with this new article. It's cited to sources specifically about non-religion in Wales. There's also the precedent of the long-established and undisputed article about the United Kingdom. It may be excessive to include all this info in the Religion in Wales article. Sionk ( talk) 19:27, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Not sure about this one, while it does not seem to have significant coverage at this stage, it is long enough to make a merger back to Religion in Wales a bit excessive and the sources used are related to Wales, although would prefer more development. Content here can be added to the UK article if there are concerns over its anglo-centricity. Overall neutral and waiting to see any further development of this article. Dank Jae 01:28, 5 December 2022 (UTC)