Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/An Bord Snip

:{{la|An Bord Snip}} ([{{fullurl:An Bord Snip|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/An Bord Snip}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

• Delete non-notable neologism per WP:NEO. No relevant GHITS found. Possibly WP:MADEUP Mayalld (talk) 15:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
• Keep This term is constantly being used in news media and common parlance in Ireland at the moment. It is intrinsically connected to the global financial crisis and Ireland's reaction to same. Most Irish people do not know there is an official name for the group or what that name is ("Special Group on Public Service Numbers and Expenditure Programmes"). It is extrememly likely that a person seeking knowledge about this group would use the slang term, "An Bord Snip", to source information. Granted it is a local-ism but it is no less meaningful in Ireland than American euphemisms like "credit crunch" or "Wall Street vs. Main Street". Admittedly, in its current state the article is quite poorly supported or referenced but it is a work-in-progress and I expect Irish Wikipedians will enthusiastically flesh it out. As for no GHITS, the term fills a whole page of Google search results. Perhaps a higher quality article will illustrate why it deserves to be kept. (Disclosure: I am the primary author of this article)--Cajmcmahon (talk) 21:45, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. -- Alexf^(talk) 19:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
• KEEP This article is highly relevant to the on-going economic crisis in Ireland, the subject of this article is referenced daily on Irish television and news media, and it is vital that a record is created of the impact and development of this group Damiantgordon (talk) 22:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
• Aside - Suggesting "Possibly WP:MADEUP" as a reason for deletion is totally incorrect, this is a real organisation. As for "No relevant GHITS found", the first page of the 1500 google hits includes every national newspaper in Ireland. Finally suggesting WP:NEO misses the fact that the original board was formed by Charles Haughey in 1987 Damiantgordon (talk) 23:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
• Hence, probably, why it's usually being referred to as 'An Bord Snip Nua' on RTE Radio. --Handelaar (talk) 18:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
• KEEP I agree with both the points made above by Cajmcmahon and Damiantgordon in relation to keeping this article. I particularly agree with the point in relation to the use of other descriptors such as "Credit Crunch". Surely this article is then a similar record? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mooneycol (talk • contribs) 23:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
• Move to Special Group on Public Service Numbers and Expenditure Programmes. Notability is clear from the sources in the article, but we should use the official name. Anyone typing in the colloquial name will still be redirected there. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:58, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
• Both Keep and Move as Phil suggests --Handelaar (talk) 18:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
• Agreed both Keep and Move with a redirect 89.101.63.72 (talk) 18:48, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
• Comment I partially agree with rationale for the Move suggestion. A concern I have however is, it will create multiple pages/entries. The board from 1987 had a different name from the 2008/09 board, yet both are know under the umbrella term "An Bord Snip". If we use the official name, we shall have to create two pages with largely identical sections. If we use the unofficial name, it will make for more concise reading and better organization of thought. If, years from now, there is another financial crisis and a similar group is set up, no matter what its official, politically expedient, PR-friendly name, it can slot quite easily into this page as a new section. Furthermore, though fictitious, I would argue the term is by now a concrete noun in Ireland and part of the Irish vernacular. I would suggest, just because the name may strike some as made-up or non-standard, it is how it is known on the ground and that gives it factual weight. It is my opinion that this should be the parent/top-level/root page. At the very least, it makes for better organisation and taxonomy. (Disclosure: I am the primary author of this article) --Cajmcmahon (talk) 18:59, 29 January 2009 (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.