Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dark age


 * 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 of the debate was KEEP. &mdash; J I P  | Talk 06:38, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Dark age
Resolving a conflict over whether the dark age page should exist. I agree it's not the best-written article, but if we have a speculative End of civilization article we should also try to build an article dealing with a civilization at its nadir. The Dark Ages page is specific to the 4th to 10th century. Timvasquez 18:50, 10 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment: Redirects to the disambiguation page. Bjelleklang -  talk 18:57, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Reply: Appears to be fixed now. -Timvasquez 19:04, 10 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Redirect -- this page has always been a redirect to Dark Ages (disambiguation). "Dark Age" means a lot of things, thats why we have a disambiguation page. There is no such thing as "civilization at its nadir called dark age", pure nonesense and original research by Timvasquez. I challenge him to provide academic citations that prove such a concept exists, we allready have articles for the few "dark ages" that are commonly recognized, but there is no general term that corosponds to "civilization at its nadir". In any case the article is a simplistic summary of whats allready contained in other articles, it's a repeat, we allready have articles, its a fork in an attempt to create a new concept. "Dark Age" is an ambigious term that is handled on the disambigutation page. Stbalbach 20:38, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: Timvasquez is "resolving a conflict" by using the VfD process. Obviously, "Dark Age" should not be deleted, it's a question of redirect. This is a disingenuous VfD. Stbalbach 20:38, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: The above Stbalbach is the individual who deleted the article; he is party to the dispute. I am abstaining. -Timvasquez 21:37, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Restore the original Redirect page as it existed prior to Timvasquez mucking about with it. → Ξxtreme Unction { yak yak yak ł blah blah blah } 20:52, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and moderate the apparent dispute. The article deserves some sort of flag.  It's a legitimate historical concept that refers to the lack of primary source documents for periods following a civilization's collapse.  The era following the fall of Rome is only the most famous example.  Any attempt to link this with POV original research about hypothetical end-of-the-world scenarios looks highly inappropriate. Durova 20:59, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Several long private messages came to me following this vote. To clarify: I agree the article needs cleanup.  Advocates for deletion seem to proceed from the assumption that the centuries in Europe following the collapse of Rome are historically unique.  Other dark ages, most notably the era in Greece following the fall of Mycenae, meet their strict interpretation of Petrarch's use of the term.  My challenge to demonstrate a difference met obfuscation.  I am therefore changing my vote to strong keep with the conclusion that the drive to delete is POV.


 * Keep for now, but move, so the redirect can be replaced. I suggest a name like Dark age (history) or Dark age (civilization).


 * Comment, delete, and redirect. What dispute? The article in question has been a redirect for the past year or so, until Timvasquez created an article, which should be deleted as there already exists an article. Delete this, and restore the redirect to the disambiguation page!. Bjelleklang -  talk 23:08, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, a reasonable subject to have an article on and if it's under a different title then a redirect will be valuable. Bryan 00:55, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Until something better comes along, this will do. There is absolutely no doubt of the validity of the term; what is necessary here is scholarly expansion. D e nni &#9775; 04:23, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Done. See Dark Ages and Dark Ages (disambiguation). There are only a few specific periods were the term is applied by scholars, and they allready have articles. For Wikipedians to apply it universally, to other periods, is original research and is not supportable. Stbalbach 05:02, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep—and muchly expand, so that it's more useful. President Lethe 21:36, 15 November 2005 (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.