Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Medieval life

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 Both policy arguments nd numeric consensus favor deletion here. DES ^(talk) 16:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Medieval life

Medieval life (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This article contains little real information about the middle ages and the Middle Ages category contains all of the information in this page. This page is nothing more than a category listing middle age topics which the middle ages category already does. This page serves no real purpose. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 04:27, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Basically just a selection of links to other articles. The only common theme here is that they somehow relate to medieval life but so does countless other articles not mentioned at all. So... delete as a list with little if any limit to what could be included per WP:NOT. MartinDK 08:14, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as a mere collection of internal links. No significant structure is provided by the sectioning of this list. Deor 12:18, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. A school assignement. Pavel Vozenilek 12:33, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. This seems like an article that just needs expanded with prose. Medieval society and medieval culture, two subjects I'd expect an encyclopedia to cover, redirect to this article. This provides a good starting structure for a rather large and very much needed article. If this entire subject is indeed covered elsewhere, then redirect without deletion. Otherwise, keep. --- RockMFR 16:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Society and culture are for encyclopedic purposes not the same thing, and merging them into one article is a dubious venture to begin with. Peter ^Isotalo 12:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, this article has been here for four years and this is the best that could be done? I don't disagree that we do need an article on the subject, but this is a list, not an article. Allow for recreation if it's made into text. Corvus cornix 17:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Doczilla 18:17, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep If it is agreed that an article like this is needed, there is no point in deleting it now only to see it recreated later. Current article can be completely changed by future editors if need be. Joshdboz 13:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

All of the information in that article already exists in the Category:Middle Ages. This article adds nothing new. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 18:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and all WWII info lies in Category:World War II, but that doesn't mean it can't have a portal article to link the many subaspects. Joshdboz 19:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

This article does a very bad job at that. If you think such a page should exist that does that then improve Category:Middle Ages, this page itself really serves no purpose as far as I can tell. If we're to have a page that does nothing but link other pages but isn't itself a category then what about "Medieval war" or "Medieval death"? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 19:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect to Middle Ages without merging content The idea is not bad per se and I understand the reasoning behind the article. However, any article called "XXX life" or "life in XXX" isn't a doable topic for encyclopedic purposes and will hardly attract any serious punters, and four years resulting in nothing but a fairly arbitrary collection of links pretty much confirms this. "XXX life" (or "life in XXX") basically means "everything related to XXX" and can just as well be equated with "XXX". It's an attempt to rewrite Middle Ages with less focus on kings, popes, wars and grand history, but has the unfortunate downside of making social history seem like a mere sub-topic, rather being an integral part of general articles. Peter ^Isotalo 12:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:06, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, rewrite, expand. The Middle Ages article is already quite large and daily life within particular time periods are incredibly interesting and there has been a vast amount of scholarly books and articles published on this very topic. The sources are there, the article is waiting to be written, someone just needs to do it. I'm sure someone at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Middle_Ages will oblige. CaveatLector^Talk 15:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep + Rewrite? If you vote for a rewrite then you should rewrite it since I don't have the time nor do I even believe it could be done and I doubt anyone at the middle ages project will do it either however you're more than free to ask. At most, the article should be deleted UNTIL it's rewritten since such a project would no doubt take weeks. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 10:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Re-writing is merely a suggestion to future editors. As for deleting an article until it is rewritten -- this is silly. Wikipedia is a work in progress. Would you suggest deleting all the stubs until they are all written into lengthy articles? --- RockMFR 16:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

A suggestion for whom? If anyone were going to dedicate time to this article they would have done so already. This article is 4 years old, it contains the same exact info as the middle ages category, it's badly written, badly put together, needs to be totally rewritten and even then I doubt it would be salvageable. Deleting it until it's rewritten is frequently done in AFD's. If someone cares enough about rewriting it then they can put a draft on their user page and rewrite it there since no one is just going to come along and rewrite it into something acceptable, they would have done so already. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 12:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete delete for now unless an actual article is reason at which time it can be brought back. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 06:49, 11 July 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.