Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Social science

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting

Points of interest related to Social science on Wikipedia
Category - - - Deletions -

This is a list of transcluded discussions on the deletion of articles related to the social sciences. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting.

You can help maintain this list by:

adding new items, by adding "{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}}" to the top of the list below (replace PageName with the name of the page to be deleted).
removing closed AFDs.
removing unrelated discussions.

If you wish, you may also:

tag discussions by adding "{{subst:delsort|the social sciences}} <small>-- ~~~~</small>" on a new line. You can automate this task by adding {{subst:deltab|the social sciences}} to your monobook.js file. See Template:Deltab for instructions.

Consult WP:DEL for Wikipedia's deletion policy. Visit WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day.

This list includes sublists of deletion debates on articles related to language and history.

1 Social science
2 Language
- 2.1 Ritter von
3 History
- 3.1 Tactics of the Roman century in combat
- 3.2 Raphael Samuel

[edit] Social science

[edit] Language

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 Delete. Nishkid 64 02:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ritter von

Verrry trivial information, does not justify an article of its own as all the information contained in the article is given in Ritter and von, and it is highly unlikely the article will ever grow beyond its current stage. doco (☏) 01:44, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Interesting etymology, but all it describes is a name. I suggest a Transwiki - does Wiktionary deal with this? --Dennisthe2 03:21, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete It's lacking in info, I struggle to see how this would be encyclopaedic or dictionary worthy. -- Greaser 08:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete - "Knight" in German is Ritter (and in an unusual usage ein Retter in der Not =a knight in shining armour), so I'd need to see proof of the odd spelling offered. Also, in Dutch there appear to be two common words, ridder (which matches the use in the article) and paard in schaakspel. Again, some proof of the eytomology needs to be provided. SkierRMH,10:15, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete, trivial etymology, belongs to Wiktionary if anywhere. — mark ✎ 12:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 10:15, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletions. -- Agathoclea 11:18, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Highly trivial, and rather clumsily named to boot. Peter ^Isotalo 13:18, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete as too trivial. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. JIP | Talk 15:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete We already have an article on Ritter which seems to me to explain the term far more clearly. Jcuk 17:31, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per above.--Rudjek 23:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

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.

[edit] History

The result was redirect to Roman infantry tactics. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 02:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tactics of the Roman century in combat

Already covered by articles Roman infantry tactics and Roman military personal equipment PocklingtonDan 17:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete as original research. Quote:the tactics "are, by necessity, a matter of speculation.." No sources, no article. Edison 19:03, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete as fork of Roman infantry tactics, which looks like a great article. Tarinth 19:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 03:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military and combat-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 03:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Redirect to Roman infantry tactics as it dplicates the topic. -- Whpq 16:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I didn't feel that a redirect would be appropriate here, since:

the article name is so long-winded no-one is likely ever to type it in in the hope of finding an article, and
There's nothing that links to the article either.
Despite its title, it actually contains weapons info too as per Roman military personal equipment. Thanks - PocklingtonDan 17:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment - redirects are cheap, and since at least one person thought use this article title, then I would submit it is at least a plausible search term. As for the actual content, I did not suggest a merge so the fact that it contains information about wepaons is irrelevant. I did not suggest a merge because all of the information is unsourced, and the other target articels are in good shape. -- Whpq 17:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Redirect to Roman infantry tactics. Redirects are cheap, and who knows what people might type into a search box. Eluchil404 00:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

The result was Keep. (aeropagitica) 09:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Raphael Samuel

Not notable, as a stub or otherwise--check hits—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kmaguir1 (talk • contribs) .

Speedy Keep. Author of over a dozen scholarly books on solid presses, and co-founder of academic journal. Influential enough to have had academic research center named after him! LotLE×talk 00:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Delete. If the article can be modified so that it includes content that is notable, I will change my vote to "keep". -Kmaguir1 01:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Still not seeing notability. There are tons of people who have 13 books out no one's every heard of who do not belong on wikipedia, and tons of people who started an academic journal who are not on here.-Kmaguir1 05:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I would argue they do belong on Wikipedia if they've been published so extensively. Obviously both they, and their books, need to be included because it's quite possible someone might actually be researching ther work. I've never heard of Nonterminating Numerical Decimals by Albert Wier (fictional) but someone might need to research it and it needs to be included here.-Shazbot85^Talk 14:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

It's an encyclopedia, and thus notability should be strictly construed. A person of note to a specialist in a field is not necessarily notable, unless there has been a popular strain in that field. Again, I know of oodles of published, intelligent authors who are not on Wikipedia, and do not belong. Weed out the ones who are on here just because they have a fan club. That's where I'm coming from. Since the material has been added, it's possibility it's only a weak delete, but again, a Marxist historian who published 13 books no one read? Would that make it into an ordinary encyclopedia? I think not. -Kmaguir1 15:41, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not paper. Kusma (討論) 15:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

...and even if it were. Well, Samuel doesn't get an independent entry in my 2004 EB (admittedly not the paper edition, but I think the content is the same); but he is referenced in the "Western theatre" entry. I wonder if Kmaguir1 will next AfD today's frontpage article on Sequence alignment, which likewise appeals to specialists, with little-to-no popular discussion of the topic. LotLE×talk 17:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I fail to see how the spectrum of notability has anything to do with the fact he is a person of note and worthy of inclusion on an encyclopedia. For instance State Route 385 (Tennessee) is included on Wikipedia. No one outside of the Memphis/Collierville/Millington area really knows about Paul Barret Parkway. The spectrum of notability does not come into play there, I fail to see how it applies here. -Shazbot85^Talk 15:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I would vote to delete State Route 385 even as I modified it--and we all know how much you hate driving on it, Shazbot. I would vote to delete it because it's nn. However, there are other state routes on here, so you want to be consistent. "References" are not enough to determine notability--it has to be notable. And you have to quantify this. About one million people in Memphis, plus another one million who used to live in Memphis, could tell you what State Route 385 or Nonconnah or Bill Morris or Paul Barrett was. I don't think two million people in the entire world could tell me who Raphael Samuel was.-Kmaguir1 00:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Spectrum of notability doesn't dimish that is it notable. -Shazbot85^Talk 01:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Keep. He's notable. He's been published. -Shazbot85^Talk 06:03, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Keep Nomination and vote to delete lack merit.--Anthony Krupp 06:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Nominator's notion of notability is becoming notorious. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 10:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Strong keep, clearly meets notability criteria thanks to LotLE's expansion. Kusma (討論) 13:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep meetgs all criteria. Kudos to LotLE Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 19:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
strong keep please it looks like bad faith nomination to me Yuckfoo 22:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 23:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Strong Keep This person is notable. So, It stands WP:Notability, and he was book publisher. Daniel's page ☎ 00:23, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Comment - Raphael Samuel had a profound effect on the historical profession in Britain and elsewhere. His published work is notable but does not reflect his influence on generations of students and historians. He has an entry in the Dictionary of National Biography and a portrait in the National Portrait Gallery. A entry should stay but not this one as it fails to capture Samuel's importance to the New Social History of the 1960s, to the project of 'history from below' and later to his writings on culture and memory. It is also inaccurate in places. Peter Claus (Raphael Samuel History Centre, University of East London). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.24.163.45 (talk • contribs).

If you know more about him, as suggested, fleshing out the biography would be great. I just worked it up from a short stub myself, but I'm sure it could be enhanced further. In particular, if you can provide citations, it would be good to include facts about Dictionary of National Biography and National Portrait Gallery. Or generally, any further elaboration (with proper citation) about his effect on historiography. LotLE×talk 01:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Keep large amount of published work. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Keep per the reasons enumerated above. --Myles Long 01:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Keep. No one except the nominator appears to believe the subject of this article is non-notable. Suggest a speedy keep at this point. RFerreira 06:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)