Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/Germanic peoples (modern) (2nd nomination): Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 21:13, 1 October 2019 editAndrew Lancaster (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers40,260 edits →Germanic peoples (modern)← Previous edit Latest revision as of 16:29, 8 October 2019 edit undoJo-Jo Eumerus (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators96,232 edits →Germanic peoples (modern): Closed as redirect (XFDcloser) 
(11 intermediate revisions by 10 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
<div class="boilerplate afd vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's ] or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page.''
<!--Template:Afd top

Note: If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links to create a new discussion page using the name format of ]. When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. -->

The result was '''redirect''' to ]. From reading the discussion, it seems like there is clear consensus to remove this article but a little disagreement about whether the content can actually be merged; thus redirecting so that the article is removed and people can copy content from the history if consensus arises that it is appropriate. ] (], ]) 16:29, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
===]=== ===]===
{{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD|S}}
<div class="infobox" style="width:33%">AfDs for this article:<ul class="listify">{{Special:Prefixindex/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Germanic peoples (modern)}}</ul></div> <div class="infobox" style="width:33%">AfDs for this article:<ul class="listify">{{Special:Prefixindex/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Germanic peoples (modern)}}</ul></div>
<noinclude>{{AFD help}}</noinclude> <noinclude>{{AFD help}}</noinclude>
Line 11: Line 17:


:As long as information on modern Germanic peoples is considered beyond the scope of the article ''Germanic peoples'', this article can however not be considered a content fork, and should be kept. Modern Germanic peoples are just as ] as modern ] of ]. ] (]) 20:29, 1 October 2019 (UTC) :As long as information on modern Germanic peoples is considered beyond the scope of the article ''Germanic peoples'', this article can however not be considered a content fork, and should be kept. Modern Germanic peoples are just as ] as modern ] of ]. ] (]) 20:29, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
::Your last point is wrong if this information is considered beyond the scope of the article Germanic peoples because it is not agreed that there are modern Germanic peoples. I think you are failing to consider that there are Slavs because they call themselves Slavs, from Russia to Croatia. I'm not sure if most Germanic speakers are even aware they speak a Germanic language. ] (]) 00:58, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

* Pinging, ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ] and ], who are active members of ]. ] (]) 20:42, 1 October 2019 (UTC) * Pinging, ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ] and ], who are active members of ]. ] (]) 20:42, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
:'''Delete''' as per the deletion nomination and the article talk page and general history of this silly discussion. It is a content fork to try to publish material not suitable for WP. It is not the first attempt.--] (]) 21:13, 1 October 2019 (UTC) *'''Delete''' as per the deletion nomination and the article talk page and general history of this silly discussion. It is a content fork to try to publish material not suitable for WP. It is not the first attempt.--] (]) 21:13, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
*'''Merge''' to ], I took part of the discussion of other page, however I understood the arguments of both sides, I uphold the core of my argumentation.(] (]) 22:49, 1 October 2019 (UTC))
*'''Merge''' to Germanic peoples. The content was mostly covered there until a relatively recent alteration of the article's scope. A couple RfCs on Talk:Germanic peoples were started by a ] (who has pretended to be a Kurdish editor complaining that Misplaced Pages is similar to Metapedia as well as an editor named Aryanman902 complaining that "wikipedia is part of a Judeo-Masonic khazar mafia conspiracy theory"), and these were seemingly used as the basis to change the article's scope. Regardless of the outcome of this AfD, I think a fresh RfC at the talk page that is not tainted by association with a barely literate sockpuppet would be useful to settle the dispute. ] (]) 03:48, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
* '''Merge'''. This article is irrelevant. Modern ] are related to the descendants who uses the ] and there is no need this article to be existed. ''']''' <sup>(] &#124; ])</sup> 11:10, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' Do RS refer to these peoples as Germanic? I think we should be basing our decision on that. I tend to agree that it makes inherent sense that they would be considered Germanic, however, given the way we discuss Turkic peoples, Slavic peoples, etc.--] (]) 13:22, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
*'''Delete ''' per JeBonSer. ] (]) 20:45, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
*'''Merge''' back to ], although there's not a lot of content to merge in the first place. The analogy to ] is apt, although that article has incomparably more content. There is no point at which the Germanic peoples can be shown to have disappeared (in the case of the Celts, there is at least a period in Late Antiquity or so which provides a potential "breaking point"), nor is there a reason or mechanism for how this should have been accomplished (there is clearly continuity until the modern period), so there is no reason to treat the group any differently from Turkic peoples, Iranian peoples, Slavic peoples, Balts, etc., which are not necessarily associated with a well-developed common identity, either – despite attempts to establish one, much like in the case of the modern Celtic nations. --] (]) 14:02, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
*'''Merge''' The comments added by Florian Blaschke are splendid and do not need repeating by me. Content should be merged. ] (]) 03:42, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
*'''Merge''' to ], per nom and ]. ] (]) 16:35, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
{{clear}}
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's ] or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page.''<!--Template:Afd bottom--></div>

Latest revision as of 16:29, 8 October 2019

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 redirect to Germanic peoples. From reading the discussion, it seems like there is clear consensus to remove this article but a little disagreement about whether the content can actually be merged; thus redirecting so that the article is removed and people can copy content from the history if consensus arises that it is appropriate. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:29, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Germanic peoples (modern)

AfDs for this article:

New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Germanic peoples (modern) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Clear content fork by a user who is not getting his way at Germanic peoples. This is not how content disputes are settled. I have not been involved in that debate, but it is pretty clear that nobody is arguing for a distinct "modern" Germanic peoples. The dispute is over whether the Germanic peoples of antiquity can be said to still exist, in some sense, today. Srnec (talk) 15:27, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:32, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
Per WP:DEL-REASON (5) a content fork should not be deleted if a merger is appropriate. WP:MERGEREASON (2, 3, 4) states that an article should be merged if there is a large overlap between them, if one of the articles is short, or if the short article is better understood within the context of the larger article. Germanic peoples (modern) is a short article better understood within the context of the article Germanic peoples, with whom it has a substantial overlap (see the sources used in this article). A merger is therefore appropriate in this case.
As long as information on modern Germanic peoples is considered beyond the scope of the article Germanic peoples, this article can however not be considered a content fork, and should be kept. Modern Germanic peoples are just as notable as modern Slavic peoples of Turkic peoples. Krakkos (talk) 20:29, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
Your last point is wrong if this information is considered beyond the scope of the article Germanic peoples because it is not agreed that there are modern Germanic peoples. I think you are failing to consider that there are Slavs because they call themselves Slavs, from Russia to Croatia. I'm not sure if most Germanic speakers are even aware they speak a Germanic language. Srnec (talk) 00:58, 2 October 2019 (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.