Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Autariatae


 * 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. The topic is notable, even if there are quality concerns with the article. There is nothing to say that it can't be salvaged. I'll add a cleanup tag to it. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Oops, there were more than a few there already. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:51, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Autariatae

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Contested prod. I prodded it as an unreferenced essay and probable Original Research but it was deprodded by Tikiwont with the comment "DEPROD: Google Books produces quite a few hits", which misses the point. The subject of the article is definitely notable but the article itself seems to be someone's research paper - that's clear both from the style and the fact that the only reference given is labelled "magister disertation, Zagreb, 2004". So if it's not the author's research then it's a copyvio. andy 14:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment If the topic is notable, how do you AfD it? Edit it down to a stub and wait for someone who knows Balkan history to make a good article out of it. MarkBul 16:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - Well, I actually put the OR and sources tag for the next knowledgeable editor to come along. Maybe I could have pointed out that the article was already for some time a stub before it was expanded to its current form. If we do not want to keep the addition, we can revert it back out, but it may make sense to keep the material on the talk page. --Tikiwont 19:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - clearly real and notable (see Google Books). But I agree it looks like a dump from someone's thesis. As suggested, trim to stub, keep current form on Talk page, and see how it compares with other sources. Is still about to help with sourcing? Daesitiates has the same problem. Gordonofcartoon 02:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and clean up, as passing WP:N, although I am in no measure an expert on the topic. Bearian 20:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - this is the blind leading the blind. There seems to be agreement that it's a dump of a thesis (copyvio?) but nobody knows what to do with it. The only possible stub is very limited and unreferenced. But if the emerging consensus is to reduce to a stub I'll go along with that, reluctantly. andy 22:35, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not so much not knowing as feeling inhibited about doing it, as it comes across as a well-written good-faith contribution, but it's going to be fiddly to confirm it all (and as a dissertation, it may contain original arguments and/or be not published anywhere peer-reviewed). Google Books has a lot of accessible material, but we really need the author to help sort out what's solidly sourced and what's personal. I've left a message asking for help with sourcing. Gordonofcartoon 00:00, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep and repair as above. Cheers, :) Dloh cierekim  00:21, 30 September 2007 (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.