Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/French dynastic disputes: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 02:35, 3 February 2017

French dynastic disputes

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This was actually an expired PROD, originally tagged by Whaleyland (talk · contribs). I largely agree with his well-argued rationale (reproduced below), but I think that the article is debated enough (based on the lengthy discussion on the talk page) that PROD is not suitable, especially given that it could just be undeleted at any time after. I would rather see this get a full AfD to settle the issue completely with consensus from a wider set of eyes. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:25, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been tagged as disputed, original research, and point-of-view since April 2015. Numerous editors have discussed in detail on the Talk page the problems of this article. It is one sided, focusing almost exclusively on the merits of Legitimism over Orléanism and Bonapartism (neither of which are given much space in the article). Furthermore, this article lacks credible sources for the amount of content it contains. Despite well-made arguments on this page, this material is not encyclopedic and does not contribute meaningful, reliable information to the Wikipedia reader base. Ultimately, it reflects almost exclusively the original research of User:Reigen and the content is entirely biased and disputed.
— Whaleyland, [1]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:14, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:14, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NUKEANDPAVE. I agree with what FactStraight said a couple years ago: "This smacks of original research". This is an OR-fest of opinion with almost no reasonable sourcing for the topic. I'd been fine with a nice, quiet PROD but I'm ok forcing this through so it can't be re-created. In 2015 this was translated from the fr-wiki article (which is still a mess, indicative of the subject) and hasn't gotten any improvement in sourcing or coherence since. Google Scholar shows a couple possible sources but I can't see much if any of this convoluted bullet-point miasma being useful to the task. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:34, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 9: / Line 9: @@
 :<small class="delsort-notice">Note:  This debate has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/History|list of History-related deletion discussions]]. [[User:Shawn in Montreal|Shawn in Montreal]] ([[User talk:Shawn in Montreal|talk]]) 01:14, 3 February 2017 (UTC)</small>
 :<small class="delsort-notice">Note:  This debate has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/France|list of France-related deletion discussions]]. [[User:Shawn in Montreal|Shawn in Montreal]] ([[User talk:Shawn in Montreal|talk]]) 01:14, 3 February 2017 (UTC)</small>
+*'''Delete''' per [[WP:NUKEANDPAVE]]. I agree with what {{u|FactStraight}} said a couple years ago: {{tq|"This smacks of original research"}}. This is an [[WP:NOR|OR]]-fest of opinion with almost no reasonable sourcing for the topic. I'd been fine with a nice, quiet PROD but I'm ok forcing this through so it can't be re-created. In 2015 this was translated from the fr-wiki article (which is still a mess, indicative of the subject) and hasn't gotten any improvement in sourcing or coherence since. [[Google Scholar]] shows a couple possible sources but I can't see much if any of this convoluted bullet-point miasma being useful to the task. <span class="nowrap" style="font-family:copperplate gothic light;">[[User:Chris troutman|<span style="color:#345">Chris Troutman</span>]] ([[User talk:Chris troutman|<span style="color:#345">talk</span>]])</span> 02:34, 3 February 2017 (UTC)