Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Burning of Parliament

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 no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Burning of Parliament

Unencyclopedic, poor article name, not a topic that needs a synthesis. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment When viewed as "List of Parliament burnings", I could see it as an encyclopedic topic. See Google webpage and Wikipedia's treatment of the topic. But the list is off to a bad start since it lacks references. Also, there probably should be a unifying theme to the burnings such as "last, desperate act by opponents." GregManninLB (talk) 07:11, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - I haven't looked too extensively at the articles for each listed country's parliament, but what ever information is missing there needs to be merged — even if it is just bits and pieces of the UK parliament section. And move the picture there, too :). If a "List of parliament burnings..." article were to be made, it should be a list of any major government building to burn down. That may include the 1812 burning of the U.S. White House, or any burnings of Japanese government buildings, for example. A parliament is basically a legislature, so why limit such a list to only those countries who actually use the word "parliament"? This is all hypothetical at this point; right now, the best option is to merge whatever necessary and delete the rest. Okiefromokla ^questions? 02:14, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I think it's a valid topic. All of these incidents should have individual articles, and this article should be a list with summaries for each. It should also be retitled to reflect a scope encompassing the burning of legislative buildings in general. Everyking (talk) 08:58, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I support a "List of" with links to relevant articles.--Poetlister 13:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Locobot (talk) 01:26, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a reasonable stat. There is to reason not to have survey articles of this sort. DGG (talk) 18:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm all for keeping if, and only if sources can be found. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 17:36, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, completely arbitrary grouping of information. Just because individual instances of this happening are notable doesn't mean we need a group article as well. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:01, 27 July 2008 (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.