Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Social science

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


 Points of interest related to Social science on Wikipedia 
Category - Deletions
 Points of interest related to Sociology on Wikipedia 
Portal - Category - WikiProject - Stubs - Cleanup
Deletion Sorting
Project
Project page (talk)
Lists (by ABC)
Lists (by topic)
AfD: Today, Yesterday
edit · changes

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Social science. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting.

You can help maintain the list on this page:

  • To add a new AfD discussion (once it has already been opened on WP:AFD):
  • Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  • You can also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Social science}}<small>—~~~~</small> to it, which will inform users that it has been listed here.
  • There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
  • Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
  • You can also add and remove links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Social science.

Please note that adding an AfD to, or removing it from, this page does not add it to, or remove it from, the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page, before adding it to this page.

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.


Archive Relevant archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Social science/archive.
Purge page cache Watch this page

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

See also: Science and medicine-related deletions.

Contents

[edit] Social science

[edit] Social science Proposed deletions

[edit] Language

[edit] Starckdeutsch

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Starckdeutsch Articles for deletion/Starckdeutsch (2nd nomination)
Starckdeutsch (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

made-up language, probably not of enough note for inclusion. Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 21:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete Not very notable. How does one verify this 5 year old article whose "language originated as a pub joke in 1972." Artene50 (talk) 21:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete unless verifiable sources provided for the language. This is hard because naturally, most of the 400 Google hits are in German. I've seen a couple of hits referring to author's "Gedichte"-- poems. This feels like a vehicle to promote his poetry. In fact I find one hit that is for a music CD. I see other hits that are more about selling CD's than writing about the language. The article on the German Wikipedia has more detail, but not better sourcing. Google Scholar gives six hits, not inspiring, but not English either. Per the article, this is a made up language used by it's creator and a few others to publish innovative poetry. Dlohcierekim 22:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Switch to Keep as notable and reliably sourced I had asked User:Dorftrottel to translate the German Google hits as my German was 30 years ago and he is pretty good at it. His reply allays any concerns I had. It is mentioned in four books by linguists. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 06:25, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Obviously, the man himself is notable enough. The language, by proxy and because it's been published, as well. If the whole thing started as a pub joke, that's fine, but IMO doesn't undermine notability in any way. And, if something is notable in Germany, it is also notable for wp.en: after all, the fact that this WP is in English doesn't mean it's merely there to serve Anglosaxon speaking countries. Besides, there's another thing: the German wikipedia is extremely severe when it comes to notability (even Quenya was not good enough for having its own article!). I know that doesn't prove anything, but it means at least something. —IJzeren Jan Uszkiełtu? 00:08, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, at best a nonnotable conlang, at worst a poor joke. —Angr 14:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Poor joke or not, it is notable enough to have been mentioned by several high-profile German linguists. dorftrottel (talk) 19:54, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Mentioned in passing, perhaps, but in the sources cited I see no evidence of it being discussed by them in any detail. Still not notable enough for an encyclopedia. —Angr 20:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete still I do not find this constructed language to be particularly notable in the context of Wikipedia. JBsupreme (talk) 14:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


[edit] History Proposed deletions

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 No consensus - Recommend to follow the advice by Peterkingiron to merge these two articles into one in which a full century is presented, alongside other material that may provide context about their validity. sources, etc. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 80 in Ireland

80 in Ireland (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

The source(s) for these article are primary sources, specifically Irish annals, but there are not accepted as having much if any reliability before the 5th century at the very earliest, and more plausibly the 6th: "Irish annalistic records at such an early period are not to be taken as historically authentic" [Fergus Kelly, "Cormac mac Airt", Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, here]. Any discussion of a "historical" Túathal Techtmar, always assuming that to be a good idea, belongs in a Roman Ireland article fenced around with if, and but, and perhaps, and with archaeologically imprecise dates, if any.

Also included, since it's in the same era and equally implausibly dated and involves Túathal Techtmar:

There is little point in merging this material as it will be equally unverifiable if merged. The most recent source on Irish chronology is Volume VIII of the Royal Irish Academy's New History of Ireland and this contains neither of these items. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment - "Roman Ireland"????? — iridescent 20:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Yes, really, Roman Ireland. I've read Martino's book. It's not as cranky as you might think, although there's an awful lot of it is really stretching. More conventionally there's a fair bit on Roman contacts in Mytum's Early Christian Ireland and a page or two in Raftery's Pagan Celtic Iron Age. Roman Ireland would need ifs, and buts, and maybes, and very careful attribution, but it would be much easier to write than 3rd century in Ireland. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
  • For the article, as with other early periods in Ireland, Merge inot articles on entire centuries, which MUST be accompanied by an explanation of how much credence is to be placed on them, since historians regard the events and figures described as legendary (not historical). The legendary events are potentially appropriate for inclusion in WP, provided it is made clear what they are. As to Roman Ireland, I believe there is evidence of one Roman fort, and this and Irish contracts with Britain might make an article on Roman Ireland. However the archeological periods in Ireland are Iron Age and Early Christian, rather than (England's) Roman, Dark Age, and Saxon. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. Unless every other country/region in the world has Year in articles then Ireland should be no exception. P.S. Roman Ireland is a non starter, don't even attempt to go there, it'll be AfD'd so fast....! Snappy56 (talk) 11:50, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge to an appropriate article about the period in Irish history. FWIW, the Irish annals are certainly subject to some commentary by historians. In one sense, their lack of corroboration by other sources makes them in some sense infallible. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per issues raised in the nom + no demonstrable need for this as a standalone. Eusebeus (talk) 22:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete: Per all the above delete arguments, I do not want to repeat the arguments. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 20:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep - "history" did not have the same definition in c. 500 A.D. as it does today. I support keeping IF we can get a cite from one of the annals. Otherwise, merge and redirect to Ireland in the 80s. Bearian (talk) 18:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per significance in real world and just note in article concerns over sourc reliability. We could say, some sources claim X about 80 in Ireland, but these claims are disputed. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:29, 6 June 2008 (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.

for occasional archiving