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 redirect‎ to Liverpool#Demonyms and identity. There is consensus, except on the part of the creator Liverpolitan1980, that there is no basis for an article about a "Liverpolitan identity". But towards the end of the discussion a WP:ATD has gained acceptance, i.e. a redirect to Liverpool, where the term "Liverpolitan" is discussed among others. Since this outcome is not in conflict with the arguments for deletion made in the first half of the discussion, I am implementing it. I am also moving the redirected article from "Liverpolitan identity" to simply "Liverpolitan", since the redirect pertains to the demonym, not the supposed "identity". Sandstein 19:58, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Liverpolitan identity[edit]

Liverpolitan identity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Renominating this per my earlier close. There are a plethora of issues. Its basis is a WP:FRINGE theory with addition WP:original research on top. WP:COMMONNAME does not support it. Previous arguments suggested that it be rewritten into a new article based around the culture and context of Liverpudlian; this page is then in breach of WP:NOARTICLE. Also WP:DICDEF There are insufficient reliable sources presented to support this as being a widespread or common usage. Those available are mostly passing mentions; other sources are from vested interests (e.g. Wetherspoons!) or support the complete opposite of what the article is claiming. Reliably sourced material, such as that from the University of Liverpool Press, actually argues that Scouse is the cultural demonym of Liverpool, compared to how it is being (mis)cited here. Some sources do not even mention the topic; others are merely about people who happen to be from there.Paging participants at the earlier AfD: @Orange sticker, Phil Bridger, Wcquidditch, Koncorde, Cullen328, Jonathan Deamer, Axad12, Redfiona99, and Liverpolitan1980:. ——Serial Number 54129 15:27, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Popular culture, Social science, and England. ——Serial Number 54129 15:27, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. I think there is definitely room for improvement and I would welcome other contributors to input improvements to the page. There are almost definite and clear connotations to the term 'Liverpolitan' and its use throughout history, as opposed to Liverpudlian. This needs to be expanded with help from contributors. It is imperative to a fair representation of Liverpool's history. Liverpolitan1980 (talk) 15:33, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This article does not follow MOS:ID as can be seen by comparing the word 'Liverpolitan' to other terms on Google Ngram or Google Trends. Additionally, it does not meet WP:N as many of the references in the article actually contain arguments which clearly state that the term is not generally used, understood or accepted, such as the quote from Steve Rotheram on BBC Radio, thus contradicting the overall basis of this article. Orange sticker (talk) 16:18, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The article makes it absolutely clear from the very outset that Scouse is the dominant demonym. It's in the lede section. It cites how the Scouse identity became popularised in the mid 20th century. It compares the much older Liverpolitan term to this, the etymology and historical context of the word. The article also explains how the term Liverpolitan has been used in a contemporary sense. The sources are news organizations. The article does not attempt to conflate the Victorian context with that of the 21st century. It merely presents the evolution of the term throughout history. Therefore, there is no attempt to present A+B=C. Each individual citation is explained exactly how they were written. There is no clear explanation as to why anyone here could possibly reach that conclusion, no specific examples, no rationale behind it and no clear attempts to improve the article itself etc...Furthermore, any deletion is also hasty and has not allowed the article enough time to develop or be improved by other contributors. For example, I have identified numerous articles within the British Newspaper archive which compare and contrast Liverpolitan to Liverpudlian. There has not been enough time to input these in to the article yet. I am able to do that as early as next week and the guidance under fringe theory advises not to assume that sources are not available simply because some editors have failed to find them. Liverpolitan1980 (talk) 16:33, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Furthermore, it must be borne in mind here that above where it says:

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

  The system is struggling because there is a possibility the page has been mislabelled. If you change sources to "liverpolitan" you see results. Liverpolitan1980 (talk) 17:38, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I don't have time to argue with every point that Liverpolitan1980 has made at various venues, but my statement in the original discussion still stands (apart from the original point 1 which was about the AfD discussion itself), as there has been no convincing response:
  1. Nearly all sources for the word I could find (especially book sources) are passing mentions of the magazine.
  2. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary.
  3. "Scouse" is in a different register. The much more commonly (than "Liverpolitan") used word "Liverpudlian" is in a slightly "posher" register as this word is claimed to be. What is the difference? Phil Bridger (talk) 17:44, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Re: WP:COMMONNAME, I suggested in the initial AfD that the article breached this policy, but I’ve subsequently realised that I was probably wrong. There are three distinct identities for people from Liverpool: Liverpudlian, Scouse and Liverpolitan – of which Liverpolitan is significantly the least common. As the article is specifically about the third of those identities, it is correctly titled. It is however a clear anomaly that no articles currently exist for the far more common Liverpudlian identity and Scouse identity (an article exists only for the Scouse accent, which is a different thing).

My personal opinion is that the article would be a great deal stronger if its scope was widened to cover all 3 identities for people from Liverpool, e.g. the differences between them, when they emerged, etc. Suggested title ‘Liverpudlian identities’. The section of the present article which concentrates on these sort of issues is significantly the strongest part of the article, which I think demonstrates my point. The real issue surrounding Liverpudlian identities, in my opinion at least, is not around the use of the word Liverpolitan but in the extent to which the term Scouse is embraced or rejected.

However, if the article is to remain solely on the Liverpolitan identity, I have discussed with the author in some detail how I believe he can improve the content to make it read less like a list of occasions on which the term Liverpolitan has been used and instead work better with his material by approaching the topic from different directions (making it about the term, rather than about when the term has been used). I would therefore be inclined to give them the opportunity to make such improvements unless the present article is rejected a priori on scope grounds (in which case I'd suggest that a widening of the scope would be preferable to deletion) . Axad12 (talk) 17:46, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will write another longer comment, but I really like Axad's idea. Red Fiona (talk) 17:58, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There doesn't seem to be a precedent for articles on collective identities at such a localised level (category: collective identity). I would also expect such an article to be very controversial! Orange sticker (talk) 19:58, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete "Liverpolitan identity" as a subject of any length is real problem of SYNTH / OR. There's no real discussion of such as thing as a "Liverpolitan identity". You would struggle to find much in the way of articles about "Liverpudlian identity" or "Scouse identity" because it's just not the way anyone would discuss the subject. Instead what we have, at the crux of this debate, is the word "Liverpolitan". Liverpolitan itself is a word of some historicity - but that doesn't mean it's article worthy in its own right, because very little has actually been written about it. Instead the "Liverpolitan identity" article has a bit of a laundry list of times the word Liverpolitan has been used, and in some cases the usage is part of very finite discussions about whether it should be the demonym for people from Liverpool, or more recently a much wider area as a result of the creation of the Liverpool City Region. However that doesn't so much support the idea of a "Liverpool identity" as a subject, but rather demonstrate how limited its usage is and how some people periodically advance it as an alternative and it's generally ignored. This for me falls then firmly within WP:DICDEF territory that can be summarised thusly:

• Liverpolitan is a historic demonym for the inhabitants of Liverpool.
• The term had some popularity around the turn of the 19th century, but the more popular demonyms Liverpudlian and Scouser have taken precedence. The term has not found widespread popularity or usage.

Echoing Orange Sticker, a lot of the content in "Liverpolitan identity" is generic Liverpool content, the given source often not mentioning the term, or when it does discuss demonyms it rejects the term, or emphasises the other terms, as the popular demonyms without getting into any further discussion of identity or culture. There's some content that talks about the evolution of the demonym that might be worth merging into the main Liverpool article in some fashion (though I haven't gone through the sources fully, I doubt is controversial, but may be a little bit of WP:OR to resolve). Some of the content is relevant to the LCR specifically or to a lesser extent Steve Rotherham. Koncorde (talk) 18:07, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:, on the other AFD I said that no matter what, better sourcing was needed. Having taken Liverpolitan1980 up on his suggestion to read the sources, here is a very brief summary (I am assuming good faith that the references I couldn't access (or did not read all of) are solid and relevant [refs 5, 6, 12, 16, 18, 21, 31, 33, 34, 36, 37, 39, 43, 46, 48, 51, 61).

Mention Liverpolitan as a concept: Refs 2, 13, 15 [but says unlikely to ever be in common usage again], 20, 25, 26, 32, 35, 47 (but claims it to be a controversial name), 50, 57 Mention Liverpool but not Liverpolitan: Refs 3, 4, 5, 8, 10, 11, 14, 17, 19, 22, 23, 24, 40, 41, 42, 52, 54, 59 Refs all based on the same press release: 27, 29, 30, 53 Refs which discuss other items named Liverpolitan, not in an identity sense: 55, 56, 58 Link to an archive not a specific page so relevance cannot be assessed: Ref 7, 49 Don't mention Liverpool: Ref 9 Not a source for these purposes: ref 1 (dictionary definition) Repeats of previously used refs: Ref 28 (is ref 2 again), 38 (is 16 again), 44 (is 43 again), 45 (is 33 again), 60 (is 20 again).

I would also suggest that if the article is kept, using the structure of ref 26, explaining that it's an old world that people are trying to refresh to give an identity to the LCR, might be the way forward, because that is how most of the references that do mention it describe it.

43/44 could also do with being given its proper reference, not a ResearchGate link.

[Also, conflict of interest statement: I am very much a woolyback so really can't see this taking off.] Red Fiona (talk) 18:24, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting analysis, which I think supports my suggestion that the scope of the article needs to be widened. Axad12 (talk) 18:36, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Demonyms for Liverpool could be a possibility (per Demonyms for the United States). However it would need significant coverage in multiple reliable sources and to be neutrally written. TSventon (talk) 19:01, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Comment I am happy (and have the time) to do one of three things. 1) Move some content in to the parent Liverpool article under the 'Demonym and identity' section. I can certainly take the most notable parts of the article and incorporate them in to the Liverpool article. Taking on board Koncorde above - there's some content that talks about the evolution of the demonym that might be worth merging into the main Liverpool article in some fashion. I can assure him that there is no WP:OR. I have certainly researched the subject though, more than most Wikipedians it seems since the subject is little referenced on the encyclopedia. Anyone would think that Scouser has been the only identity in the history of Liverpool - until I have obviously flagged the subject for further discussion. 2) There are almost certainly articles on the encyclopedia that follow the convention of 'List of demonyms', 'List of adjectivals and demonyms' etc... I am certainly happy for a re-naming of the article to List of adjectivals and demonyms in the Liverpool City Region. I can assure people that there are more than a few. One of the users above uses the word woollyback, one uses Scouser, I use Liverpolitan. The list is not exhaustive. If I do that, I need some assurances that the article would be allowed to develop in that subject without another nomination for deletion. 3) A complete re-write I simply just do not have the time to do by myself. However, I appreciate Axad12's comment above that this is part of a much wider discussion. I agree with her/him. The issue for me is that the topic is little referenced on the encyclopedia as it stands. If people are willing to re-organise and re-name this article along side working with me then I am happy to do that. I am not sure what the title would be, but 'Identities within the Liverpool City Region' could be a start? It all depends on what way this discussion is going to go. But from where I am coming from there seems little appetite to make constructive changes to the article itself - rather to critique the need for its existence in the first place. I will need some heavy reassurances that there is not going to be a huge amount of controversy or drama with any of these three directions. Liverpolitan1980 (talk) 19:22, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My impression is that all controversy on the current article relates to the title and the fact that the article relates to a relatively obscure corner of a much larger issue.

I can't speak for others but I'd imagine that any of your 3 suggestions above would remove those problems - as long as the coverage given to Liverpolitan is not WP:UNDUE.

(I don't think the list option works. My understanding is that Wikipedia list articles - e.g. 'List of [x]' - are supposed to list things which (in the main) already have their own articles on Wikipedia. I may be wrong on that, but the list option seems like the worst option of the 3 anyway.) Axad12 (talk) 19:38, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with option 1, however I would urge caution when writing about a collective identity as it is such a loaded topic. Expanding on your list of demonyms to include a bit more about their origins, etymology and usage would be a strong contribution to the either the Liverpool, Scouse or Liverpool City Region page, I think. Orange sticker (talk) 20:07, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the WP:OR - statements like:

• "Over time, the Scouse identity has become entrenched within the local culture and has been intensified by those who identify more with Liverpool's maritime history and connections to overseas than they do to England itself, or the English establishment."

and

• "The identity has also been adopted in the surrounding areas of Liverpool, most notably in Sefton and Knowsley, and to a lesser degree on the Wirral and in St Helens"

Are both at a glance at source and sentence explicitly OR. For the first sentence there is no mention in the source of maritime history etc Indeed the final paragraph attributes the Scouse identity proxy of "Scouse, not English" to "civic pride and rebellious spirit", a failure of of the Establishment, and the fact there's a lot of Irish descendants. For the second sentence meanwhile being it claims the identity has been "adopted". This isn't put forwards at all by the source and would be a very odd claim to make versus, say, it simply reflecting that Scousers have (over time) moved to those areas. The actual paper is about the impactfulness of the Scouse identity on voting, rather than any attempt to attribute "Scouse identity" to those areas or people, with the numbers used to attribute a coefficient for his statistical analysis. He is in effect saying "I interviewed some people, some said they were scouse - this is what that means for their voting habits". Using the study for other purposes is OR, and the way it is presented in the paragraph is rather blatant WP:SYNTH as it would be inferred that "Scouse, not English" would also be relevant in those other areas (which, again, isn't supported by the sources). Koncorde (talk) 20:49, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have made some improvements to the Liverpool article for contributor perusal. I feel that this is a completely fair representation of Liverpool's history. I am happy for this page to be deleted and over time perhaps the Scouse page can be expanded. Also, a simple re-direct from 'Liverpolitan identity' and 'Liverpolitan' to the Liverpool article might do the trick. Liverpolitan1980 (talk) 21:20, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Does seem largely OR or SYNTH, most uses of the term are a line or two. Could be trimmed back to a DICDEF and incorporated into an article about Liverpool. Seems to be largely an attempt at promoting a point of view. Oaktree b (talk) 21:39, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  And please don't reply with a wall of text as above; I'm frankly not interested. Oaktree b (talk) 21:40, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: TO ALL PARTICIPANTS: Please be concise. Do not write walls of text. What AFDs need is a decisive consensus and the probability of that happening is generally increased with more thoughtful participation from a diverse group of editors. When you write looong explanations, it makes it less likely that other editors will want to read all of this and participate in the discussion. Also, the options for closure here are limited: Keep, Delete, Redirect, Merge and Draftify (and sometimes Move). Do not propose editorial changes or rewriting of an article unless you are willing to do this yourself. That can be done if there is a Keep decision but are meaningless if the result isn't Keep. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:22, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep/Move:

My preference would be to re-name it to 'History of Liverpool identity or similar. There is a lot of potential for it to be expanded but it will need to be collaborative. There is lots to discuss such as history of the term Liverpudlian, the debate between Liverpudlian and Liverpolitan. Any rejection or support for those terms. Rejection of a scouse identity etc...but I couldn't put a lot of time in to something if it is going to be flagged rather than contributed to. That's too difficult an environment. Liverpolitan1980 (talk) 10:07, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect/Merge:

TSventon raises a good point about Demonyms for Liverpool. If that isn't possible, the article Liverpudlians could contain short sections on the Scouse and Liverpolitans, since I understand "Liverpudlian" to be a hypernym of all groups associated with living in Liverpool. I also support Liverpolitan1980's suggestion to merge it with Liverpool under the 'Demonym and identity' section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheSands-12 (talk • contribs) 05:44, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A history of the identity could be an interesting article. Oaktree b (talk) 12:57, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Liverpool: After reviewing this quite a few times, I feel this is a rare case where Wikipedia:Editorial discretion should be invoked. The few sources claiming that Liverpolitan was a notable identify are substantially posterior to the period they comment on ('Liverpool', by G. Chandler published in 1957 is the most contemporaneous to the alleged strong use during the Victorian era, however he uses "Liverpolitan" as an adjective 7 times in 515 pages, including for persons as early as the 16th century). There appear to have periods where it has emerged as a moderate-to-rare-use demonym for Liverpool, but the secondary sources seem to be reaching into Wikipedia:Fringe theories, in particular when they state it was in common use in the Victorian era and represented a notable class identity difference based on social class. Looking at compendiums of primary sources such as Google nGram, Newspaper Archive, British Newspaper Archive, there is almost no usage evident before 1902... Which is a direct contradiction as this is no longer the Victorian era. Futhermore, these primary sources should be reviewed further to support any class identity difference, since the hits include many cases where 'Liverpolitan' is not a demonym, in particular many horse racing almanachs and journals reporting on "Liverpool Plate" (a horse that ran frequently in the 1900s and 1910s, and seems to have been advertised as a breeding horse and included in horse genealogical information for several decades after), and mentions of the periodical 'Liverpolitan' which was published seemingly from the 1930s to the 1940s. As an encyclopedia, we should not be aiming to "correct the record" and the above comments are clearly Wikipedia:Original research which should not be included in any article. However, editorial discretion means we should not give undue weight to this minority viewpoint, while many of the sources in this very article mention that liverpolitan is so rare a demonym it is almost unknown of, and proceed to reference ultimately the same few sources (Tony Crowley and John Belchem in particular). The article should be merged into the Liverpool article's section on demonyms and identitiy - which has already largely been done - while paying attention to not overemphasize this viewpoint versus the significantly better established 'Liverpudlian' and 'Scouse', but this last point is going beyond this AfD. Shazback (talk) 06:06, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment - Regarding the suggestion to rename the article / redirect to a separate self-standing article such as Demonyms for Liverpool or History of Liverpool identity, I would strongly suggest using the Wikipedia:Writing Wikipedia articles backward approach. Identifying three high-quality sources that can be used as the basis for the article would be highly valuable to avoid cases where passing mentions are relied on too heavily. Although slightly outside the scope of this AfD, sourcing for the article feels a bit like Wikipedia:Citation overkill... Many of the sources are documenting context which is not leveraged strongly by the topic or section it is used in (e.g., the current revision has a section on etymology where none of the six inline citations actually comment on the etymology of liverpolitan, but another source cited in other sections - Tony Crowley's Scouse: A Social and Cultural History has an entire appendix covering the etymology of demonyms for Liverpool), or feel like an indiscriminate list of occasions where a reliable source has used the word. Building a good quality starter article from a limited number of high quality sources would most clearly establish the topic's notability and its relevance for Wikipedia. Shazback (talk) 06:36, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
My research so far shows that the term Liverpudlian is first used in 1833. There are some suggestions that it was derogatory or humourous. In 1901, I can find an argument in the British Newspaper Archive that the term Liverpolitan should be adopted in its place. The term Scouser as an identifier comes later - during the second world war as a term used in the British armed forces. That research might change but we will not know that without the opportunity to put the subject out there in order for editor discretion to take place naturally. The historicity of Liverpool demonyms is, therefore, evolving. I think this is a fascinating subject which is worthy of more discussion and expansion. There is also lots to say about the term Woolyback and how Liverpool identity is perceived both inside and outside of the city boundaries. I would suggest there is scope for a separate article with obvious collaboration, peer review and editor discretion. Liverpolitan1980 (talk) 09:38, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Liverpool. There doesn't seem to be enough significant coverage to justify a separate article, at least under the current title, and it seems to me to involve too much OR/SYN. See also concerns above about NOTDICT and RGW, and Shazback's comments about the sourcing. There may be scope for an article about the Liverpool cultural identity, but this isn't it (and certainly not under this title). Brunton (talk) 15:46, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Convert to disambiguation page and re-name to 'Liverpolitan'.

Edits made to page. Suggestion to re-name the article to 'Liverpolitan' and convert to a disambiguation page as per link to Wiktionary. Liverpolitan1980 (talk) 18:59, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A disambiguation page is not needed as we don't have multiple notable topics that could be titled "Liverpolitan". It's doubtful that we even have one, as is being discussed here. What's left of the article now makes it even clearer that a redirect to Liverpool is appropriate. Brunton (talk) 09:03, 30 March 2024 (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.