Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Medievia (2nd nomination): Difference between revisions

< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 14:00, 13 December 2019 editCzar (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators134,304 edits →Medievia: +← Previous edit		Revision as of 08:07, 14 December 2019 edit undoSandstein (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators188,264 edits Relisting discussion (XFDcloser)Next edit →
Line 3:		Line 3:
	<div class="infobox" style="width:33%">AfDs for this article:<ul class="listify">{{Special:Prefixindex/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Medievia}}</ul></div>		<div class="infobox" style="width:33%">AfDs for this article:<ul class="listify">{{Special:Prefixindex/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Medievia}}</ul></div>
	<noinclude>{{AFD help}}</noinclude>		<noinclude>{{AFD help}}</noinclude>
	:{{la\|Medievia}} – (<includeonly>]</includeonly><noinclude>]</noinclude>{{int:dot-separator}} <span class="plainlinks"></span>)		:{{la\|Medievia}} – (<includeonly>]</includeonly><noinclude>]</noinclude>{{int:dot-separator}} <span class="plainlinks"></span>)
	:({{Find sources AFD\|Medievia}})		:({{Find sources AFD\|Medievia}})
	All we have on this topic are four sentences from three listings. A search brought only primary and unreliable source material. Not enough to meet the ] criteria of the ]: We can't write an encyclopedia that does justice to the topic with this little information. The entire "controversy" section has no mention in reliable, secondary sources. There are no worthwhile redirect targets, since ] only accepts entries with their own articles. <span style="background:#F3F3F3; padding:3px 9px 4px">]</span> 21:49, 27 November 2019 (UTC)		All we have on this topic are four sentences from three listings. A search brought only primary and unreliable source material. Not enough to meet the ] criteria of the ]: We can't write an encyclopedia that does justice to the topic with this little information. The entire "controversy" section has no mention in reliable, secondary sources. There are no worthwhile redirect targets, since ] only accepts entries with their own articles. <span style="background:#F3F3F3; padding:3px 9px 4px">]</span> 21:49, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
Line 16:		Line 16:
	* '''Keep:''' I tend to agree with ]. The article is notable. - ] (]) 15:09, 12 December 2019 (UTC)		* '''Keep:''' I tend to agree with ]. The article is notable. - ] (]) 15:09, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
	*: Agree with what claim, though? The book citations are cursory mentions and the only source with depth is the undergrad thesis. The bulk of the article text consists of primary sources and original research whose removal was reverted. <span style="background:#F3F3F3; padding:3px 9px 4px">]</span> 13:57, 13 December 2019 (UTC)		*: Agree with what claim, though? The book citations are cursory mentions and the only source with depth is the undergrad thesis. The bulk of the article text consists of primary sources and original research whose removal was reverted. <span style="background:#F3F3F3; padding:3px 9px 4px">]</span> 13:57, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
			<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"><span style="color: #FF6600;">'''{{resize\|91%\|] to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}'''</span><br />
			<small>Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 08:07, 14 December 2019 (UTC)</small><!-- from Template:Relist --><noinclude>]</noinclude></div><!-- Please add new comments below this line -->

Revision as of 08:07, 14 December 2019

Medievia

AfDs for this article:

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

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

All we have on this topic are four sentences from three listings. A search brought only primary and unreliable source material. Not enough to meet the significant coverage criteria of the GNG: We can't write an encyclopedia that does justice to the topic with this little information. The entire "controversy" section has no mention in reliable, secondary sources. There are no worthwhile redirect targets, since List of MUDs only accepts entries with their own articles. czar 21:49, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 21:49, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Keep Article already cites three books, I also turned up this paper on google scholar in my first search. - MrOllie (talk) 21:59, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

"Three books" = three mentions from listings in three books (listicles of the 1990s). That citation is the same story: A brief mention pulled from an undergrad thesis (Zen 2003). Can't write an article on this topic without delving into primary source original research, as in the material you restored to the article. czar 22:04, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Undergrad theses occasionally get it right, one way we know when that happens is they get cited and quoted in a journal, which is what happened here. MrOllie (talk) 22:11, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

My bad—wasn't a thesis but a 100-level course paper. czar 22:18, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 20:46, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Keep: I tend to agree with MrOllie. The article is notable. - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:09, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
Agree with what claim, though? The book citations are cursory mentions and the only source with depth is the undergrad thesis. The bulk of the article text consists of primary sources and original research whose removal was reverted. czar 13:57, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:07, 14 December 2019 (UTC) Categories: