Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Devonwall (UK Parliament constituency)
once it's been '''renamed''' to "Devonwall (proposed UK Parliament constituency)" and cleaned up. It doesn't fail  because the article is not about a non-existent constituency: it's about the controversy surrounding the possible creation of such a constituency. The problem is the way the article has been written. As CRYSTAL states: "All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred." Well, it's certainly verifiable (and notable) - there are many news reports and the name has been mentioned in Parliament - and if it already existed it would merit its own article alongside List of constituencies in South West England|these. CRYSTAL continues "It ''is'' appropriate to report discussion and arguments about ... whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced", which is exactly what this article should aim to do. To further refute Zangar's arguments (sorry, nothing personal!) it doesn't fail CRYSTAL point 2 because it isn't part of a "predetermined list or a systematic pattern of names" about which "only generic information is known". It doesn't fail point 3 because it reports the position now, and doesn't (or won't once I've edited it) speculate about the future. And point 5 takes us back to the start of my argument - the article is about the controversy, not the non-existent constituency. &nbsp
— User:Smalljim, 14:30, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:CRYSTAL (Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not)