Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Duck Island, garden feature

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 Moot. has been moved to a proper location this is going to be notable so this is now moot. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Duck Island, garden feature

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is a thinly disguised reference to one particular UK Member of Parliament's claim for expenses on the upkeep of a duck house, not about "duck islands". Malleus Fatuorum 04:22, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I can find no sources that discuss the topic of a duck island, only mentions of the topic in the context outlined by the nominator. Drmies (talk) 04:45, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hyper-delete I have never seen such Marxist propaganda in all my life until I read the article!--86.29.141.30 (talk) 11:15, 9 November 2009 (UTC)— 86.29.141.30 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Have you ever seen Marxist propaganda in your life? Cause this sure don't look like it--it doesn't even quack like it. Drmies (talk) 21:50, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - This whole scandal was revealed by that well-known Marxist newspaper, The Sunday Telegraph. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:34, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As the nom says, this is a thinly-disguised reference to Peter Viggers' expenses claim. I would say redirect to Peter Viggers#The Duck Island Incident, but the second part of the title makes it an unlikely search term. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 12:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retitle and expand - a genuine topic - note the Duck House photo. The article needs to be retitled as 'Duck shelter' or suchlike and expanded. 92.9.153.114 (talk) 12:54, 9 November 2009 (UTC)— 92.9.153.114 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
I'm renameinig it "Duck and Swan shelters".--86.29.131.120 (talk) 13:50, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please wait until the end of this deletion discussion before renaming. Thanks, MuffledThud (talk) 14:11, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Example of Wikipedia being used to make a political statement. Any useful material can be added to articles like water feature, or a proper version (under a better title) can be created after this abomination has been deleted. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:13, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I see that this has been taken from the article on Duck Ponds. Rosser Gruffydd 21:31, 9 November 2009 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosser1954 (talk • contribs)
Delete - it's not realy note worthy.--86.29.133.116 (talk) 09:56, 11 November 2009 (UTC)— 86.29.133.116 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete - I have removed the stuff that was obviously meant to annoy Sir Peter's voters.--Novembiana (talk) 10:31, 11 November 2009 (UTC) — Novembiana (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment - please note that a deletion discussion is not a vote, and piling lots of "delete" entries in here will not ensure that the article is removed. Wikipedia:AFD#How to discuss an AfD is a useful read if you're new to deletion discussions. Thank you. MuffledThud (talk) 11:27, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Expand and retitle to Garden island or Floating garden island or similar. Plenty of coverage of this type of garden feature online: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] etc., though the word "duck island" has recently been in use in the UK press to refer to a politician who allegedly bought one of these improperly. MuffledThud (talk) 11:41, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 07:37, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment: I have relisted this AfD to generate more discussion about MuffledThud's "keep" opinion. Cunard (talk) 07:37, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (but rename) - on the basis that, disregarding entirely the MP's expenses issue, there is no reason not to have an article on Duck house / Duck shelter - much like Hen house ( = Chicken coop) - or some such thing, of which duck islands (ie, duckhouses on water rather than on land) could properly form part. Further, given the recent prominence of duck island(s) in a UK political context, that connection should surely also be mentioned - there's no lack of solid references. HeartofaDog (talk) 10:02, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've moved the debate to the 2009 November 18 log after this was closed for over a day. Cunard (talk) 23:06, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is Wikipedia, not Britishpoliticsipedia. If we need an article about actual duck islands, write one; this is a bad starting point.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 23:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We do need such an article, and I do not see why this is a bad starting point--we could remove all that part. DGG ( talk ) 05:14, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (note that I moved the article to Duck house) I recognise the potential coatrack issues here, but I think this is a real and legitimate topic for an article. We just need to make sure the political content doesn't get too out of hand. Robofish (talk) 00:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Regardless of its recent political connections, this seems a legitimate subject for an article. It even has decent pictures and (admittedly poorly formatted) references. Modest Genius ^talk 02:55, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the redirect This article has been moved to duck house, which term does seem to cover a number of structures sheltering ducks. Duck island, on the other hand, seems to refer almost without exception to various islands per se, except for this one scandal. Mangoe (talk) 18:02, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete including any redirects. What a nuts topic. There are no convincing sources. It's not discussed in any notable way. Cynof Gavuf 12:01, 25 November 2009 (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.