Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Craven in the Domesday Book

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:02, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Craven in the Domesday Book

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

This is a personal essay/original research by synthesis on a minute aspect of an English district that is not itself specially notable such that its appearance in one historical document merits a page all its own. Craven already has 5 paragraphs on the subject, which is all that is necessary. Identifying who held every square meter of land within the district is clearly excessive, beyond the scope of an encyclopedia. Agricolae (talk) 17:43, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Agricolae (talk) 17:44, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. First, let me give my bias. Athough I live in Australia I have known and loved the area covered by this article for nearly 60 years. I found this article fascinating. There may be some synthesis, but it is well sourced. Maybe we can not have an article on every area of England covered by Domesday Book, but that is not a reason to delete this. We are not short of space. There is no reason why 5 paragraphs on any subject can not be expanded out in a separate article if there are sources. There clearly are sources for this topic. I think it should be kept. --Bduke (Discussion) 21:28, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If we are not short of space, then why can't we have an article on every area of England covered by Domesday Book? Whatever that reason is, that's the reason this page should be deleted or userfied. Srnec (talk) 22:25, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We could have an article on every one of them, if there is an editor with the time and resources to write it. What is the point of userfying it? It is eminantly encyclopedic, if a bit specialised, but as I stressed we have the space to be specialised. --Bduke (Discussion) 22:50, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or userfy. I agree with the nominator's rationale, but I wouldn't have a problem if the creator of the article wanted to keep it in a user subpage. Srnec (talk) 22:25, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep While I am not entirely convinced that Wikipedia needs to go into quite so much detail about Domesday Book entries for Craven, I can't see any reason for the charge of original research/synthesis - the main part of the article is thoroughly sourced (even if the sourcing for the detailed lists is effectively primary) and shows widespread discussion in reliable sources. Not that this is exactly surprising, as every part of the Domesday Book has been discussed in a large number of reliable sources, and this applies particularly to areas like Craven which have few other primary sources from the 11th century. PWilkinson (talk) 15:05, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:22, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sufficient information for a distinct article. There is no reason not to go into detail on historical subjects. DGG ( talk ) 08:57, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is sufficient information for a lot of stuff that doesn't meet our notability and undue weight guidelines. That's the reason not to go into excessive detail. Srnec (talk) 20:48, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep, wholly agree with DGG. And an excellent map there too. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:58, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I do not regard this as satisfactory article, but it is not so bad that we should delete it and start again. I suspect that there will be more academic investigations of the subject of the origins of Craven that ought to be covered. I suspect a better title would be The origins of Craven. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:28, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I do not think that there are grounds for deletion here. There are always going to be arguments about the amount of detail to go into in Wikipedia and how best to present it, but these are essentially editing matters. The present Craven article does indeed cover this topic but is quite long enough and arguably this aspect of it already occupies a disproportionate amount of space. The sort of division proposed by Peterkingiron, though not perhaps with the title he suggests, might indeed be the way to go. The question of what the historic entity of Craven might have been is clearly notable, but many of those looking at that article will be seeking information on the present local authority area and a split between the contemporary and historic might suit all parties. As for just how much detail to go into, the issue is usually whether summaries are adequate. That is for those with detailed knowledge to decide, but there is nothing inherently inappropriate here it seems to me. I might suggest to the involved editors that there is a need to consider whether the intention of the article is merely to present the evidence from the Doomsday Book in a summary form, or to use it as the basis for explanation of what 11th century residents understood by Craven, which is better presented with its map now in the main article, but Wikipedia is a work in progress. --AJHingston (talk) 10:35, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.