Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Royal forest

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 keep as no good reason given for deletion, and clearly a consensus to keep.

[edit] Royal Forest

totally unsourced, should be shelved until sourced. An article like this cannot continue to exist on Wikipedia totally unsourced. Too much POV and possible gross inaccuracies Harthacanute3 00:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep While there are many things that should be carefully watched, I can't find anything in this article screams to me that this is too much POV or grossly inaccurate. It's certainly historically true. I believe what you should have done is look for some clean-up templates instead of nominating for deletion. FrozenPurpleCube 00:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. Wavy G 00:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep its not perfect but it's a good article --Seadog.M.S 00:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Well written article. a bit POV, butit just needs rewriting not deletion. --Ageo020 (Talk • Contribs) 01:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Well written and informative article. Probably needs a bit of editing, but well worth keeping. Pursey 02:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep A hell of a lot of Wikipedia is unsourced. There are more offensive, libelous pages out there than this one. --Zeality 02:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Fix the inaccuracies, add citations. --- RockMFR 03:16, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This article isn't controversial so there can't really be a POV. The page can also be improved. Worth keeping. ||150.203.177.218 03:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, two years ago this could have been a Featured Article. Tag the problem areas, and don't use AFD for good articles that need work. --Dhartung | Talk 05:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Per above. Cnwb 06:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup, it needs sourcing and copyediting to be more encyclopedic, but there's nothing so funamentally flawed that it needs to be deleted altogether. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 06:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. While sourced articles are preferable, there is no stipulation that unsourced articles should be deleted. -- Necrothesp 17:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment There is a source cited. Only one, but it's still a source. ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 20:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above -- Librarianofages 21:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep' - POV and unsourced information are not good reasons for deletion. --Ineffable3000 22:03, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep and close this out per WP:SNOW, this just needs some simple improvements here and there. RFerreira 01:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. Why is this article not being deleted for lack of sources when a similar article Anglo-Saxon hunting IS being deleted right now for the rationale of lack of sources? Harthacanute3 03:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. As (I think) the principal contributor to this article some time ago, I admit that the sourcing is not as clear as it could be. Most of the material on forest law (the bulk of the article) was taken from the first chapter of John Manwood's treatise and from Blackstone's Commentaries, both of which are linked in the text; there are also external links to several royal charters in the "History" section. The principal problem, as it stands, is that Manwood (whom Blackstone relied on), though a Tudor justice of the forest, lived at a time when forest law had to some degree fallen into desuetude. His listing of the beasts of the forest is not entirely accurate, as already noted (see also the amply-cited Warren (free)), and I am now given to understand that his classification of the court of swainmote is also problematic. Unfortunately, I will have to go to some difficulty to read GJ Turner's Select Pleas of the Forest, an important corrective to Manwood, and will not be able to revise it immediately. But overall, I think you'll find that the bulk of this article can be verified in the sources I've named, even if they haven't yet been arranged into inline citations and so forth. I hope this clears up some mysteries. And speaking of which, might I ask the nominator (who appears to have had some experience of Wikipedia before registering his name) why he marked the addition of the AfD notice as a "minor edit" and omitted a summary, and why his contributions so resemble those of the short-lived User:Fecal Matters? Or what the POV is in the article? Choess 04:48, 18 October 2006 (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.