- 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. Additionally, a discussion regarding a potential merge can continue on an article talk page. ( non-admin closure) NorthAmerica 1000 09:17, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Celtic nations
- Celtic nations ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I propose to delete this article because of content forking. There is a more appropriate article for the subject ( Celts (modern)). Fakirbakir ( talk) 21:18, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Delete: (merge what's acceptable but isn't merged already) It's also what I call a 'Wikipediaism' - something promoted by Wikipedians, if not pretty much invented by them. It's historically fluff as a term. There was no such thing as 'Celtic nations' when the Celts were around, and they cannot be called 'Celtic' now in any properly academic sense: at most it's a candy word for sports games, historical events and the like. But these endless sub articles just get forked with all kinds contentious politics. I think this article just happens to suit various nationalists in here who want these places to be sovereign countries, and it appears to me that they are largely the people who frequent this page. A section on modern Celtic ancestry should be enough for any properly academic encyclopedia in my view. (ie in the actual Celts article - but this should be deleted all the same, as I argued on the talk page a year or so ago). Matt Lewis ( talk) 22:30, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Keep: The two articles are about two different things. One is about the political territories in Europe, the other is about the ethnic (i.e. cultural) group that includes those living in other parts of the world, such as the Welsh language community in Patagonia. Bodrugan ( talk) 02:40, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
- You are 'Cornish' though. The idea of that being a 'Celtic nation' is just romantic. It's not encyclopedic enough for it's own page - none of it is. It's too political, and it's not historically accurate enough. Celts did not have nations, and Cornwall is not a nation now. Matt Lewis ( talk) 13:28, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
keep-merge, Fakirbakir, what are you up to? There are naming issues here, but the way to resolve them is not deleting articles left and right, the solution is coming up with decent proposals for re-arranging the topic and then convincing people to implement it via WP:BRD. Don't try to resolve complex questions of content via the deletion process, it isn't the appropriate tool. -- dab (𒁳) 09:25, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
- It was brought to talk last year but no debate happened at all. Everyone who attends the article wants the article that's why. That's partly why WP has have 'AfD'. It's not complex at all imo, it's actually quite simple. There too much forked subs in these areas, and each sub article get's less and leas encyclopedic. Sections in the main article's are fine. I personally think that Modern Celts is an article too much, and I'm 'supposed' to be one! (it's funny how I don't feel very different to anyone else though, and have no desire to forge iron objects at all).
Matt Lewis (
talk) 13:28, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
- Answering the question, I just try to stir up the still water. Somebody creates a FORK and due to the well sourced text the article becomes unmovable. As I see no one really cares about the future of these articles.
Fakirbakir (
talk) 13:41, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
- I think a fair amount of people will want to keep this one, and it will be interesting to see how many other people think it's too unencyclopedic, or an article too many. Ie how many people still support the old inclusionist 'Wikipdia is infinite ideal = ie let 'everyone have their say'. The simple forking argument may not count here, as people will argue that this group of Celtic nations actually exist. But the idea has no authority at all though. No sovereign, or UN or European recognition as such or anything like that. It's all romantic at best, and to this extended broad degree it's political (ie they support each others causes, as minority separatists always do). They don't have the sources that cover this extended use either: not outside of partisan websites. Matt Lewis ( talk) 13:56, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
- Answering the question, I just try to stir up the still water. Somebody creates a FORK and due to the well sourced text the article becomes unmovable. As I see no one really cares about the future of these articles.
Fakirbakir (
talk) 13:41, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Keep (don't delete): Agree with Bodrugan's comment, Celts(modern) is concerned with Celtic Identity in modern times (Modern Celtic culture). Jembana ( talk) 09:55, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
- The thing is, you have a user-page thing saying your "proud to be Celtic". That's absolutely fine. But an article called 'Celtic nations' is essentially a third-level sub article, and isn't ok at all. It just makes Wikipedia look a bloated and decidedly non-academic mess imo. Even as a 'notable term' (which I don't think it is personally) areas like Welsh TV news programmes - which can be quite nationally 'proud' overall - do not normally refer to any of these nations as 'Celtic nations' - and only Wales in terms of 'home nation' sport like Rugby. It's article-section material, not it's-own-article stuff. And when they do use the term, they are not pronouncing on France or Cornwall etc at all. That's an important point to: it's not used politically at all. It's intrinsically political in here, hence all the forked politics. The forking will always happen in pages like this. This article is basically yet another article on Celts (or Modern Celts if we have to have that too), but with a specifically 'nation'alistic flavour. Matt Lewis ( talk) 13:47, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
- Keep Per WP:CFORK, content forks are addressed by merger, not deletion. This is a naming/scoping dispute and so RFC is the appropriate process, not AFD. Andrew ( talk) 15:57, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:29, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:29, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:29, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:29, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
- Keep: The article could use some improvement, but not deletion. Celtic nations is about the nations, both historic and contemporary. Celts (modern) is about modern manifestations of ethnic identity. The concept and term is not unique to WP; it predates the existence of Wikipedia by generations, at least, and is a common framing in Celtic studies and politics. If some editors are politically opposed to the identification of the Celtic Nations as socio-political entities, that's not a valid basis for deletion. - CorbieV ☊ 17:19, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
- The Celts didn't have nations. It's one of the reasons they spread so far then died out. This is all modern politics. This is another 'Celtic' area editor btw. This needs non-interested participants. Matt Lewis ( talk) 18:03, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
- Keep: Per CorbieV. There is clearly a bit of work required here but it's equally clearly a valid article, and distinct from Celts (modern). Deletion isn't the way to deal with content forks anyway, seems like an odd nom. Bretonbanquet ( talk) 17:30, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
- 'Breton' banquet? Content forking is all this article contains - that was made pretty clear by Fakirbakir. Also AfD's often deal with merging too. But there's nothing really to merge, as all of the value here is elsewhere. It's a pretty straight AfD for me.
Matt Lewis (
talk) 18:03, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
- "Matt" Lewis? You're really not making yourself look very clever by making (horribly incorrect) assumptions based on people's usernames. You say this needs non-interested participants, are you attempting to include yourself in that?
Bretonbanquet (
talk) 18:51, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
- No, I'm definitely involved. I've said this page is non-encylopedic before, and have explained why. It's not the type of thing that's suitable for Wikipedia. Webspace yes, Wikipiedia no. We still need people who aren't involved though! Matt Lewis ( talk) 19:48, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
- "Matt" Lewis? You're really not making yourself look very clever by making (horribly incorrect) assumptions based on people's usernames. You say this needs non-interested participants, are you attempting to include yourself in that?
Bretonbanquet (
talk) 18:51, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
- 'Breton' banquet? Content forking is all this article contains - that was made pretty clear by Fakirbakir. Also AfD's often deal with merging too. But there's nothing really to merge, as all of the value here is elsewhere. It's a pretty straight AfD for me.
Matt Lewis (
talk) 18:03, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
- Delete This is full of content forks and seems to be a POV view from the Celtic League. It really isn't acceptable to redefine Nation to mean whatever you want, and without that the whole article falls to pieces. Many of the historical claims are very dubious. Dingo1729 ( talk) 00:29, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
- Keep -- This is a legitimate article which is not about Celts (modern), though it is a main article linked to that. Merging back to that article would unbalance that one. It may be that it is covering material in other articles, but I do not know which. This article may be about political POV, but that does not mean that it is a POV-article in the WP sense. Artilces on POVs have a legitimate place in an encyclopedia. Peterkingiron ( talk) 19:30, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
- I do understand the inclusionist argument, but do you think that the available sources for using the term in this politicised broad and 'intercontinental' way are sufficiently sound? - ie is it 'notable' as it stands? And if not, then does it still deserve its own article? Matt Lewis ( talk) 19:49, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Keep: Numerous reliable sources use this specific phrase. From the media ( RTÉ, BBC), though academia ( National Museum Wales, Encyclopedia of the Stateless Nations (p 2186, index), Penn State University), through published music ( here and here) to governments ( Isle of Man Government, Welsh Government) and many others. Curious this should be nominated for deletion. Daicaregos ( talk) 19:53, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
- You can't just link to uses of the word "Celtic"! That's a 'modern Celt' issue.
Matt Lewis (
talk) 19:59, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
- Each source uses the phrase 'Celtic nations' in context. Daicaregos ( talk) 20:12, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
- You can't just link to uses of the word "Celtic"! That's a 'modern Celt' issue.
Matt Lewis (
talk) 19:59, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
- The Welsh Assembly uses the format "Celtic 'nations'" for a festival. None of it is worthy enough to me I'm afraid, not for its own article. There seems to be no agreed definition for a start. The best one's the Museum of Wales, but it says "Today, Wales is considered a Celtic nation, one of a family of nations and regions" - it just talks about Wales and then "nations and regions" - all of which were Celtic areas that retained some historical identity. It's a push to say that ref says "Celtic nations" for the lot. Well, it just doesn't. And the Welsh Assembly one uses deliberate quotes too. Some of these are simply regions. I just think 'Celtic nations' is too fanciful a term for it's own article when there is already one on Celts (modern). You can certainly find these sources if you look for them though. Does that mean all the forking is okay? I don't know. I'd like to see some neutral input though - a 'Celtic nationalist' here!
Matt Lewis (
talk) 23:00, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
- The Welsh Government uses Celtic nations to describe those represented at the festival. The links I provided was not a definitive list, they were examples. Here's another one from the Scottish Government. I see you've quarelled with and/or insulted nearly everyone who voted to keep the article. Is 'neutral input' just those who agree with you? Whatever … Keep! Daicaregos ( talk) 15:15, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
- The Welsh Assembly uses the format "Celtic 'nations'" for a festival. None of it is worthy enough to me I'm afraid, not for its own article. There seems to be no agreed definition for a start. The best one's the Museum of Wales, but it says "Today, Wales is considered a Celtic nation, one of a family of nations and regions" - it just talks about Wales and then "nations and regions" - all of which were Celtic areas that retained some historical identity. It's a push to say that ref says "Celtic nations" for the lot. Well, it just doesn't. And the Welsh Assembly one uses deliberate quotes too. Some of these are simply regions. I just think 'Celtic nations' is too fanciful a term for it's own article when there is already one on Celts (modern). You can certainly find these sources if you look for them though. Does that mean all the forking is okay? I don't know. I'd like to see some neutral input though - a 'Celtic nationalist' here!
Matt Lewis (
talk) 23:00, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
- Keep and consider reorganisation or merge with related articles according to merge procedures. Although you could argue it's a spin-off of Celts (modern) and keep it on those grounds. It's a long article which people want to contribute to, and just because there's no single definition of "celtic nation" is not grounds for deletion. -- Colapeninsula ( talk) 17:20, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
- Keep - this is not just invented here; plenty of sources prove that. Normal editing processes can fix the issues noted. Bearian ( talk) 23:01, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
- Keep, this is a widely used term, defined and in use by notable organisations. Frankly, some (not all) of the "delete" opinions being expressed here are just very ugly Celtiphobia and racism. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 11:29, 8 March 2014 (UTC).
- 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.
- 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. Additionally, a discussion regarding a potential merge can continue on an article talk page. ( non-admin closure) NorthAmerica 1000 09:17, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Celtic nations
- Celtic nations ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I propose to delete this article because of content forking. There is a more appropriate article for the subject ( Celts (modern)). Fakirbakir ( talk) 21:18, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Delete: (merge what's acceptable but isn't merged already) It's also what I call a 'Wikipediaism' - something promoted by Wikipedians, if not pretty much invented by them. It's historically fluff as a term. There was no such thing as 'Celtic nations' when the Celts were around, and they cannot be called 'Celtic' now in any properly academic sense: at most it's a candy word for sports games, historical events and the like. But these endless sub articles just get forked with all kinds contentious politics. I think this article just happens to suit various nationalists in here who want these places to be sovereign countries, and it appears to me that they are largely the people who frequent this page. A section on modern Celtic ancestry should be enough for any properly academic encyclopedia in my view. (ie in the actual Celts article - but this should be deleted all the same, as I argued on the talk page a year or so ago). Matt Lewis ( talk) 22:30, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Keep: The two articles are about two different things. One is about the political territories in Europe, the other is about the ethnic (i.e. cultural) group that includes those living in other parts of the world, such as the Welsh language community in Patagonia. Bodrugan ( talk) 02:40, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
- You are 'Cornish' though. The idea of that being a 'Celtic nation' is just romantic. It's not encyclopedic enough for it's own page - none of it is. It's too political, and it's not historically accurate enough. Celts did not have nations, and Cornwall is not a nation now. Matt Lewis ( talk) 13:28, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
keep-merge, Fakirbakir, what are you up to? There are naming issues here, but the way to resolve them is not deleting articles left and right, the solution is coming up with decent proposals for re-arranging the topic and then convincing people to implement it via WP:BRD. Don't try to resolve complex questions of content via the deletion process, it isn't the appropriate tool. -- dab (𒁳) 09:25, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
- It was brought to talk last year but no debate happened at all. Everyone who attends the article wants the article that's why. That's partly why WP has have 'AfD'. It's not complex at all imo, it's actually quite simple. There too much forked subs in these areas, and each sub article get's less and leas encyclopedic. Sections in the main article's are fine. I personally think that Modern Celts is an article too much, and I'm 'supposed' to be one! (it's funny how I don't feel very different to anyone else though, and have no desire to forge iron objects at all).
Matt Lewis (
talk) 13:28, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
- Answering the question, I just try to stir up the still water. Somebody creates a FORK and due to the well sourced text the article becomes unmovable. As I see no one really cares about the future of these articles.
Fakirbakir (
talk) 13:41, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
- I think a fair amount of people will want to keep this one, and it will be interesting to see how many other people think it's too unencyclopedic, or an article too many. Ie how many people still support the old inclusionist 'Wikipdia is infinite ideal = ie let 'everyone have their say'. The simple forking argument may not count here, as people will argue that this group of Celtic nations actually exist. But the idea has no authority at all though. No sovereign, or UN or European recognition as such or anything like that. It's all romantic at best, and to this extended broad degree it's political (ie they support each others causes, as minority separatists always do). They don't have the sources that cover this extended use either: not outside of partisan websites. Matt Lewis ( talk) 13:56, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
- Answering the question, I just try to stir up the still water. Somebody creates a FORK and due to the well sourced text the article becomes unmovable. As I see no one really cares about the future of these articles.
Fakirbakir (
talk) 13:41, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Keep (don't delete): Agree with Bodrugan's comment, Celts(modern) is concerned with Celtic Identity in modern times (Modern Celtic culture). Jembana ( talk) 09:55, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
- The thing is, you have a user-page thing saying your "proud to be Celtic". That's absolutely fine. But an article called 'Celtic nations' is essentially a third-level sub article, and isn't ok at all. It just makes Wikipedia look a bloated and decidedly non-academic mess imo. Even as a 'notable term' (which I don't think it is personally) areas like Welsh TV news programmes - which can be quite nationally 'proud' overall - do not normally refer to any of these nations as 'Celtic nations' - and only Wales in terms of 'home nation' sport like Rugby. It's article-section material, not it's-own-article stuff. And when they do use the term, they are not pronouncing on France or Cornwall etc at all. That's an important point to: it's not used politically at all. It's intrinsically political in here, hence all the forked politics. The forking will always happen in pages like this. This article is basically yet another article on Celts (or Modern Celts if we have to have that too), but with a specifically 'nation'alistic flavour. Matt Lewis ( talk) 13:47, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
- Keep Per WP:CFORK, content forks are addressed by merger, not deletion. This is a naming/scoping dispute and so RFC is the appropriate process, not AFD. Andrew ( talk) 15:57, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:29, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:29, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:29, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:29, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
- Keep: The article could use some improvement, but not deletion. Celtic nations is about the nations, both historic and contemporary. Celts (modern) is about modern manifestations of ethnic identity. The concept and term is not unique to WP; it predates the existence of Wikipedia by generations, at least, and is a common framing in Celtic studies and politics. If some editors are politically opposed to the identification of the Celtic Nations as socio-political entities, that's not a valid basis for deletion. - CorbieV ☊ 17:19, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
- The Celts didn't have nations. It's one of the reasons they spread so far then died out. This is all modern politics. This is another 'Celtic' area editor btw. This needs non-interested participants. Matt Lewis ( talk) 18:03, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
- Keep: Per CorbieV. There is clearly a bit of work required here but it's equally clearly a valid article, and distinct from Celts (modern). Deletion isn't the way to deal with content forks anyway, seems like an odd nom. Bretonbanquet ( talk) 17:30, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
- 'Breton' banquet? Content forking is all this article contains - that was made pretty clear by Fakirbakir. Also AfD's often deal with merging too. But there's nothing really to merge, as all of the value here is elsewhere. It's a pretty straight AfD for me.
Matt Lewis (
talk) 18:03, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
- "Matt" Lewis? You're really not making yourself look very clever by making (horribly incorrect) assumptions based on people's usernames. You say this needs non-interested participants, are you attempting to include yourself in that?
Bretonbanquet (
talk) 18:51, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
- No, I'm definitely involved. I've said this page is non-encylopedic before, and have explained why. It's not the type of thing that's suitable for Wikipedia. Webspace yes, Wikipiedia no. We still need people who aren't involved though! Matt Lewis ( talk) 19:48, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
- "Matt" Lewis? You're really not making yourself look very clever by making (horribly incorrect) assumptions based on people's usernames. You say this needs non-interested participants, are you attempting to include yourself in that?
Bretonbanquet (
talk) 18:51, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
- 'Breton' banquet? Content forking is all this article contains - that was made pretty clear by Fakirbakir. Also AfD's often deal with merging too. But there's nothing really to merge, as all of the value here is elsewhere. It's a pretty straight AfD for me.
Matt Lewis (
talk) 18:03, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
- Delete This is full of content forks and seems to be a POV view from the Celtic League. It really isn't acceptable to redefine Nation to mean whatever you want, and without that the whole article falls to pieces. Many of the historical claims are very dubious. Dingo1729 ( talk) 00:29, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
- Keep -- This is a legitimate article which is not about Celts (modern), though it is a main article linked to that. Merging back to that article would unbalance that one. It may be that it is covering material in other articles, but I do not know which. This article may be about political POV, but that does not mean that it is a POV-article in the WP sense. Artilces on POVs have a legitimate place in an encyclopedia. Peterkingiron ( talk) 19:30, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
- I do understand the inclusionist argument, but do you think that the available sources for using the term in this politicised broad and 'intercontinental' way are sufficiently sound? - ie is it 'notable' as it stands? And if not, then does it still deserve its own article? Matt Lewis ( talk) 19:49, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Keep: Numerous reliable sources use this specific phrase. From the media ( RTÉ, BBC), though academia ( National Museum Wales, Encyclopedia of the Stateless Nations (p 2186, index), Penn State University), through published music ( here and here) to governments ( Isle of Man Government, Welsh Government) and many others. Curious this should be nominated for deletion. Daicaregos ( talk) 19:53, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
- You can't just link to uses of the word "Celtic"! That's a 'modern Celt' issue.
Matt Lewis (
talk) 19:59, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
- Each source uses the phrase 'Celtic nations' in context. Daicaregos ( talk) 20:12, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
- You can't just link to uses of the word "Celtic"! That's a 'modern Celt' issue.
Matt Lewis (
talk) 19:59, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
- The Welsh Assembly uses the format "Celtic 'nations'" for a festival. None of it is worthy enough to me I'm afraid, not for its own article. There seems to be no agreed definition for a start. The best one's the Museum of Wales, but it says "Today, Wales is considered a Celtic nation, one of a family of nations and regions" - it just talks about Wales and then "nations and regions" - all of which were Celtic areas that retained some historical identity. It's a push to say that ref says "Celtic nations" for the lot. Well, it just doesn't. And the Welsh Assembly one uses deliberate quotes too. Some of these are simply regions. I just think 'Celtic nations' is too fanciful a term for it's own article when there is already one on Celts (modern). You can certainly find these sources if you look for them though. Does that mean all the forking is okay? I don't know. I'd like to see some neutral input though - a 'Celtic nationalist' here!
Matt Lewis (
talk) 23:00, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
- The Welsh Government uses Celtic nations to describe those represented at the festival. The links I provided was not a definitive list, they were examples. Here's another one from the Scottish Government. I see you've quarelled with and/or insulted nearly everyone who voted to keep the article. Is 'neutral input' just those who agree with you? Whatever … Keep! Daicaregos ( talk) 15:15, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
- The Welsh Assembly uses the format "Celtic 'nations'" for a festival. None of it is worthy enough to me I'm afraid, not for its own article. There seems to be no agreed definition for a start. The best one's the Museum of Wales, but it says "Today, Wales is considered a Celtic nation, one of a family of nations and regions" - it just talks about Wales and then "nations and regions" - all of which were Celtic areas that retained some historical identity. It's a push to say that ref says "Celtic nations" for the lot. Well, it just doesn't. And the Welsh Assembly one uses deliberate quotes too. Some of these are simply regions. I just think 'Celtic nations' is too fanciful a term for it's own article when there is already one on Celts (modern). You can certainly find these sources if you look for them though. Does that mean all the forking is okay? I don't know. I'd like to see some neutral input though - a 'Celtic nationalist' here!
Matt Lewis (
talk) 23:00, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
- Keep and consider reorganisation or merge with related articles according to merge procedures. Although you could argue it's a spin-off of Celts (modern) and keep it on those grounds. It's a long article which people want to contribute to, and just because there's no single definition of "celtic nation" is not grounds for deletion. -- Colapeninsula ( talk) 17:20, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
- Keep - this is not just invented here; plenty of sources prove that. Normal editing processes can fix the issues noted. Bearian ( talk) 23:01, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
- Keep, this is a widely used term, defined and in use by notable organisations. Frankly, some (not all) of the "delete" opinions being expressed here are just very ugly Celtiphobia and racism. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 11:29, 8 March 2014 (UTC).
- 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.