Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Historical revisionism (Catalunya)

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 of the debate was delete. --Angr (t·c) 17:26, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Historical revisionism (Catalunya)

Article is a copy of Catalan negationism, already requested for delete since 16 december 2005. The reasons are therefore the same (see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Catalan_negationism for the original request, and talk:Catalan negationism for details about the content Wllacer 09:56, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• keep -- Don't bite the newbies. I am voting keep because nominator is not following the WP:AFD policy.

See the first entry in Talk:Catalan_negationism. The author of this article is obviously trying to comply with the suggestion that the article should have been created under this name.

Nominator is conflating their dispute over what they perceive as a biased point of view in the original article with whether the article should exist. Their discussion of POV issues belong on the talk page, they should not lead off an {afd} discussion, according to WP:AFD. -- Geo Swan 14:18, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• This explanation is going to be messy. User:Geo Swan was also the sole keep vote under the original AfD discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catalan negationism. As someone who holds a university degree in history, I can assert that this title is inappropriate regardless of the outcome of the original vote. Revisionist history has distinctly different meanings in academic and popular use. See Historical revisionism and Historical revisionism (political). In academic circles this is a legitimate pursuit that reexamines events in light of new evidence and new interpretive techniques. Someone who admitted to not understanding that distinction suggested recreating the article under this title and User:Geo Swan endorsed that faulty idea. The change adds inherent POV to the stub's unresolved problems: it still appears to be original research. All of the author's English language references are tangential to the article's central claims. One is even a Wikipedia mirror site - possibly an effort to give the appearance of scholarship by creating a superfluous external link. Neither term has a Google presence. The stub names no historian or journalistic source. User:Geo Swan fails to substantiate the claim that the nominator is reacting to perceived bias. If the original stub can be saved it should be merged with a larger article. Its present content is not worth keeping. This title fails on its merits. Strong delete. Durova 16:57, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Durova. Flyboy Will 21:29, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Durova. --Quasipalm 21:56, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• keep -- unsigned comment by User:85.138.0.73 07:34, 2005 December 26
  • I believe the policy is that the only votes that count are by wikipedia contributors who have created a userid. If 85.138.0.73 wants their vote to count, they should come back, after logging in, and sign a vote..-- Geo Swan 13:42, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 17:16, Dec. 31, 2005

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.