Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Chronology (Rohl): Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Latest revision as of 14:29, 10 February 2022

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.

New Chronology (Rohl)

The result was closed per WP:SNOW, and the recommendations on when a non-admin should close. I will not oppose reversion of this, if I'm in the wrong, but it seems pretty plain that this is a non-controversial, speedy close, since even the nominator doesn't think it should be deleted. Unit Anode 23:28, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

An editor at New Chronology (Rohl) insists on adding a {{notability}} tag, apparently on the basis that academic theories that are not widely accepted in their field are subjected to different notability criteria, a position with no obvious basis in WP policy. David Rohl's New Chronology has been covered in a number of popular books by Rohl (one reaching number 2 on the Sunday Times bestseller list), 2 other academic books (one in German), and at least three TV documentaries. Naturally the popular books and TV generated some secondary coverage too. Is this enough for notability, or should the article be deleted or merged back to David Rohl (from which it was recently spun out to permit better development)? Rd232 ^talk 18:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. notability certainly established. Rd232 ^talk 18:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Isn't nominating an article for deletion and then voting to keep a violation of WP:POINT? john k (talk) 20:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If the nominator is voting to keep the article in AfD then that's the equivalent of withdrawing the nomination. I agree that this bad-faith nomination is somewhat pointy. (And yes, it's a textbook bad faith nom because you don't really want it deleted.) I wonder if an administrator can somehow wipe this AfD out like it never happened? -- Atama ^chat 20:43, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and close. If the nom doesn't actually want the article deleted, then he shouldn't have nominated it. This can just as easily be discussed at the article's talk page.--Atlan (talk) 22:12, 10 August 2009 (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.

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
+{{#ifeq:{{#titleparts:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|2}}|Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log|<span id="New Chronology (Rohl)"></span>{{collapse top|bg=#F3F9FF|1=[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Chronology (Rohl)]]|padding=1px}}|}}
-===[[New Chronology (Rohl)]]===
+<div class="boilerplate metadata afd vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
-{{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD|S}}
+:''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 talk page or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]).  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 in order to create a new discussion page using the name format of [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PAGENAME (2nd nomination)]].  When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. -->
+===[[New Chronology (Rohl)]]===
+The result was closed per [[WP:SNOW]], and [[Wikipedia:Non-admin_closure#Appropriate_closures|the recommendations on when a non-admin should close]]. I will not oppose reversion of this, if I'm in the wrong, but it seems pretty plain that this is a non-controversial, speedy close, since even the nominator doesn't think it should be deleted. [[User:Unitanode|<span style="font-family:Georgia;font-variant:small-caps;color:#63739F">Unit</span>]][[User talk:Unitanode|<span style="font-family:Georgia;font-variant:small-caps;color:#63739F">Anode</span>]] 23:28, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 :{{la|New Chronology (Rohl)}} (<span class="plainlinks">[{{fullurl:New Chronology (Rohl)|wpReason={{urlencode: [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Chronology (Rohl)]]}}&action=delete}} delete]</span>) – <includeonly>([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Chronology (Rohl)|View AfD]])</includeonly><noinclude>([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 August 10#{{anchorencode:New Chronology (Rohl)}}|View log]])</noinclude>
 :({{find sources|New Chronology (Rohl)}})
 An editor at [[New Chronology (Rohl)]] insists on adding a {{tl|notability}} tag, apparently on the basis that academic theories that are not widely accepted in their field are subjected to different [[WP:N|notability]] criteria, a position with no obvious basis in WP policy. [[David Rohl]]'s New Chronology has been covered in a number of popular books by Rohl (one reaching number 2 on the Sunday Times bestseller list), 2 other academic books (one in German), and at least three TV documentaries. Naturally the popular books and TV generated some secondary coverage too. Is this enough for notability, or should the article be deleted or merged back to [[David Rohl]] (from which it was recently spun out to permit better development)? [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] <sup>[[user talk:rd232|talk]]</sup> 18:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
-* Keep. [[WP:N|notability]] easily established. [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] <sup>[[user talk:rd232|talk]]</sup> 18:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
+* Keep. [[WP:N|notability]] certainly established. [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] <sup>[[user talk:rd232|talk]]</sup> 18:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
+* '''Comment''' - Isn't nominating an article for deletion and then voting to keep a violation of [[WP:POINT]]? [[User:John Kenney|john k]] ([[User talk:John Kenney|talk]]) 20:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
+*'''Comment''' - If the nominator is voting to keep the article in AfD then that's the equivalent of withdrawing the nomination. I agree that this bad-faith nomination is somewhat [[WP:POINT|pointy]]. (And yes, it's a textbook bad faith nom because you don't really want it deleted.) I wonder if an administrator can somehow wipe this AfD out like it never happened? -- '''[[User:Atama|<span style="color:#06F">At</span><span style="color:#03B">am</span><span style="color:#006">a</span>]][[User talk:Atama|<sup><span style="color:#000">chat</span></sup>]]''' 20:43, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
+*'''Keep''' and close. If the nom doesn't actually want the article deleted, then he shouldn't have nominated it. This can just as easily be discussed at the article's talk page.--[[User:Atlan|Atlan]] ([[User talk:Atlan|talk]]) 22:12, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
+:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  <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 talk page or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this page.'' <!--Template:Afd bottom--></div>
+{{#ifeq:{{#titleparts:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|2}}|Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log|{{collapse bottom}}|}}