Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Birthplace of Marco Polo


 * 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   delete. —  Aitias  // discussion 02:56, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Birthplace of Marco Polo

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

To cite a comment on the talkpage: ''This article is a shame. A group of users is trying to push their nationalistic POV by systematically reverting all edits which they don't agree with and edit-warring until the other users give up. Mainstream history and most historians and primary and secondary sources (including Britannica 1911, current Britannica, Encarta, etc.) still report as Marco Polo's birthplace Venice, but this is actually hidden after a ton of badly sourced mostly Croatian "historians", bad original research, linguistic puns taken as proofs and unverifiable statements. This article deserves recognition: it should be used as an example what an article shouldn't be. It manages to show POV, undue weight, lack of balance and nationalist bias.GhePeU (talk) 21:55, 7 October 2008 (UTC)'' The article is about a dispute about the birthplace but at most one or two sentences at Marco Polo article about the dispute cover the topic perfeclty well. This article is a POV fork and a source of heated debates that lead nowhere and are contraproductive for an encyclopedia and thus, IMO, should be deleted. Tone 22:32, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Where Marco Polo was born deserves at most a sentence or two in his own article. This article is always, by definition, going to be POV as there is no proof where he was born, just speculation. A nationalist battleground forever. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 22:42, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * But won't deleting it simply move the battleground to the main Marco Polo article? Remember? There is little chance of preventing people from adding (sourced) information on the speculations about his birthplace, this is Wikipedia after all. The other side will then more than likely want to add its own POV which will simply transport us back in time. This article was basically created to keep these pointless debates away from the mainstream article. As you say, this problem will be a nationalist battleground forever, but deleting it won't remove the issue. Why move the battleground into the spotlight and destabilize an important biographical article? (I'm strongly leaning to Oppose, but I'll await your response first.) -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 22:55, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Creating a POV fork is not a solution. And it is far easier to deal with battles in one article than in several. Noting that there is a dispute is perfectly enough and the encyclopedia is not a place where one would count arguments pro and contra. An academic debate should take care of it, not a WP article. --Tone 23:03, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, this article is not the solution, but it appears to be the next best thing. Simply put, if we delete this article, we're bound to destabilize the Marco Polo article in the same way, plus, since the debate will now have to take place on a mainstream article, we're bound to get even more POV-pushers. A decisive academic debate would be great, except there is none. The solution is definitely not to move the battlefield, its the elimination of the issue. Do you guys have any plan to prevent edit-warring on Marco Polo? -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 08:06, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete There seems to be sufficient references to call this a noteworthy fringe theory, so it's probably worth a mention in the article on the locale and the article on Polo using the first three references, but having an entire article on this gives it WP:UNDUE weight. - Mgm|(talk) 09:15, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * delete, or merge with Bosnian pyramids. --dab (𒁳) 09:21, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. MGM's point is irrefutable. An entire credulous article on this dedicated to pushing this wingnut POV is not really on. Admittedly getting rid of it will cause problems at Marco Polo, but we can deal with that in the usual way. Moreschi (talk) 12:06, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * And here it starts... "wingnut POV"?! User:Moreschi is apparently suggesting we remove the theory and block anyone who tries to reintroduce it, which is quite unacceptable. Please note everyone: this article is NOT about the "Korčula theory", it is about the unknown birthplace of Marco Polo. All possible alternatives are covered in this article. We will probably never achieve consensus on a summary of the information contained herein. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 13:45, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I can't agree here. The article is about Korčula theory. It says so in the introduction, then tells lots about the theory and at the end adds some contra-arguments and criticism. An article about unknown birthplace would start somehow like The birthplace of Marco Polo is not agreed on in academic circles. While most historians agree that he was born in Venice, some historians propose that he was born in Korčula... and it would continue in this manner. --Tone 13:58, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It may appear that the article emphasizes on the alternative to Venice, but that is simply because Venice is the widely acknowledged birthplace and the article must account for its existence and explain the dilemma. It could be that it is not fully balanced but that is not a cause for deletion. I do not think the article should be deleted before an approach is agreed-upon to avoid an edit-war and introduce an Admin-enforced NPOV version of a birthplace section. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 14:18, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I think we can agree on noticing the theory in the controversies section in the main article. Admins should take care that it stays brief. For my part, I can watchlist the article and intervene when needed. There is a paragraph in Korčula article, I am fine with it. --Tone 18:09, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - per undue weight policy. Terse (talk) 20:42, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * comment. I've already put my point above, but in response to other comments, I would say that it is very clear that our role at Wikipedia is to acknowledge that there are two claims as to the birthplace of Marco Polo and guide people towards these by proper referencing. We need do no more than that. So the main article can say something like "traditionally historians have put his birthplace as being Venice, but claims have been raised that he was born in Korčula". And given that neither is apparently 'correct', as there is no conclusive evidence either way, we do the right thing by mentioning the two claims and move on. If people wish to look into it further, then we can facilitate that by referencing both sides. I think a sensible wording of a couple of sentences in the main article should be quite easy to come up with. If people then come along to fight about it, they can be reverted and, if ultimately necessary, blocked or the article semied. This shouldn't be that troublesome. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 22:08, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. DIREKTOR, how you can possibly say this article is not about the "Korčula theory" puzzles me. If the heading was changed to "Korčula-birthplace of Marco Polo" the text would be much more relevant. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 00:15, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * As I said before, the emphasis is on the "Korčula theory" because Venice is the widely acknowledged birthplace. Everyone considers Venice to be the home-town of Marco Polo and the wording of the article needs to justify its existence. Also, a slight lack of balance in the lead is an easily-addressed problem. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 08:51, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You said it -"the emphasis is on the "Korčula theory"". In that case either the title is changed to something like "Korčula-birthplace of Marco Polo", or the article is rewritten to fit the current heading. It doesn't at the moment. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 19:38, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose. I do not think this article is the solution to this problem, but I also do not think we here can come up with anything better. The problem is bound to move to the Marco Polo article. I want to go on record: I believe this is a mistake, the Marco Polo article may well become engulfed in an edit-war. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 17:45, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. As per my comment in the Talk Page. As it stands now this article is unacceptable and after thirteen months of edit-warring and continual reversions to its current state I don't think that it could ever become balanced. GhePeU (talk) 18:32, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Heh, then how are we supposed to "balance" a far shorter version for the Marco Polo article? I get the feeling some users are supporting this deletion in the hope that the main article summary will reduce the Korčula theory in importance. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 19:17, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Starting "afresh" at Marco Polo would be better than keeping this article in its present form, with its present title. How do we achieve balance? By vested interest editors keeping away from the article for a bit, while uninvolved editors deal to it. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 19:38, 23 December 2008 (UTC).
 * I hope you're right. It would appear we shall see in any case... I, for one, am more than happy to keep away from the matter. Truth be told, the main reason I'm concerned with this deletion because it may disturb the status quo and "draw" me back in. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 20:27, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete as flagrant POV fork. Mangoe (talk) 01:24, 24 December 2008 (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.