Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Encyclopedia of the Medieval Chronicle


 * 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. If it turns out that Medieval Chronicle Society is kept, then normal editing process can determine to what extent that article should mention this topic. postdlf (talk) 02:58, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Encyclopedia of the Medieval Chronicle

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Following on from discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Encyclopedia_of_the_Medieval_Chronicle, the Wikipedia article Encyclopedia of the Medieval Chronicle was authored by the real life general editor of the work,. Published late last year, Doric Loon has since authored Wikipedia articles on the book for at least four different Wikipedia projects, including English wiki, whilst inserting it into hundreds of articles as a 'reference'. The work came out only last year, and far from having any clear notability, is probably unknown to most academics, and indeed is yet to be fully distributed (though as the book search reveals, copies of many articles had been made available to some academics prior to its publication). Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 19:30, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Current version of that is at Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 48.--Doric Loon (talk) 07:26, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related page.

The society's notability is far from clear, and was authored by the same Wikipedia editor (who happens to be the President of the organization; perhaps the founder too?). Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 19:35, 26 February 2011 (UTC) Replaced with Articles for deletion/Medieval Chronicle Society following requests on this page. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 13:43, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I would have preferred these be nominated separately, or, rather, the latter not at all. I think a discussion of the notability of the Medieval Chronicle Society should be had at its talk page, since it is not clear whether it meets our (very low) standards or not. In the case of the Encyclopedia of the Medieval Chronicle, the solutions seems clear: it has not attained notability by even our standards yet and Doric Loon should copy it onto his hard drive (or some other off-site storage device/place) and hold onto it until some time in the future when citations or reviews in academic work and its use here at Wikipedia has blessed it with sufficient notability. Until then it should be deleted. If and when it is re-created it must cite something other than itself. Srnec (talk) 21:08, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:40, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. First, we on this page must talk only about the Encyclopedia, not about the Society, which should be nominated for deletion separately, don't you think? Hope so. Anyway, I don't blame our colleague Doric Loon for attempting to publicize this work, which seems fully admirable. Nevertheless, it is not yet Notable, so it should be deleted with all good wishes for its future success. (By the way, according to http://www.amazon.com/Encyclopedia-Medieval-Chronicle-Graeme-Dunphy/dp/9004184643, it is a $555 book.) Sincerely, a friend to all, GeorgeLouis (talk) 21:51, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Support. The article has promotional tendencies, the work is non-notable. Accusativen hos Olsson (talk) 16:54, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Do not support (at all!). First of all, I would like to ask the two contributors above who support the deletion to do two things: 1) argue more clearly why they believe this work is "not notable" (stating something is not proving); 2) to present their academic credentials that allow them to assess the "unnotable" nature of this work. This is in fact a monumental work, and it is the first major encyclopedia of medieval chronicles in English. If the two users believe that the article sounds "promotional", that is not reason enough to delete it (the style can be changed). The fact that the article was written by the author of the encyclopedia is also not reason enough to demand the deletion of the article. As a matter of fact, we (and Wikipedia) should be happy that the article was written by an expert. So, once again, the case for deletion does not stand. --Euro (talk) 17:15, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 07:47, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Comment Either its notable or its not, I don't see any reason to thing the COI of the primary author should carry any weight on the AFD, that said, to the 'Do not support' commenter, can you point to any sources that would satisfy Notability_(books). Thats all it would take to save the article, but I haven't seen any yet. Monty 845 (talk) 07:57, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Re: CommentThe Encyclopedia of the Medieval Chronicle is cited as the authoritative work on the subject in Albrecht Classen's Handbook of Medieval Studies (p. 1720). See also on Google Scholar: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=%22Encyclopedia+of+the+Medieval+Chronicle%22&btnG=Search&as_sdt=0%2C44&as_ylo=&as_vis=0. --Euro (talk) 22:45, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't know whether I should be writing here when I'm not a Wikipedia member, but my supervisor wrote for this encyclopedia, so I know a little about it. Although it only appeared on paper six months ago, the people who worked on it, which includes all the big names in the field, had access to the database over the last five years, which means that for them it already has a track record. I'm not sure what would count as proof of notability here, but you might want to look at "Narrative Sources" (http://www.narrative-sources.be/colofon_nl.php). If you put the title of the Encyclopedia into the search engine, you will find that it is cited there 605 times as an authority. Actually, you should think about writing a Wikipedia article on Narrative Sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.223.36.96 (talk) 14:24, 13 March 2011 (UTC)


 * OK, it is really time to wind this thing up. The vote would appear to be three “keeps” (Euro, unregistered 93.233.36.96, and me), four “deletes” (Deacon of Pndapetzim and Accusativen Hos Olsson, and ambivalently (?) Snrec and GeorgeLouis) and one waiting for evidence (Monty845). Since the last two edits did provide evidence of notability, it would be interesting to know what Snrec, GeorgeLouis and Monty845 now think, but they haven’t been back since that was added. At any rate, this seems to be a fairly even split, and so I have asked for admins to come in and decide the matter.
 * I think it’s clear that notability is the only issue here. If anyone is still worried about the CoI issue, please see the comments I just made at Articles for deletion/Medieval Chronicle Society.--Doric Loon (talk) 07:18, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * You want to Keep it as the author, Euro wants to keep it because he is also an author, the other anon is a former phd student of an author .... so you and two single purpose accounts (brought in by yourself?) want to keep, and everyone else thinks it should be deleted. Not impressed at all. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 12:45, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Just a note to Doric Loon: baring very unusual circumstances which are not applicable here, Articles for deletion discussions must run for at least one week, so now is definitely not the time to "wind this up". No comment on the actual article itself.  Qwyrxian (talk) 03:11, 17 March 2011 (UTC) Never mind, I misread--I thought this was opened on March 16. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:14, 17 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. I could find no sign of notabality using google scholar, google news or plain google.  While it may well one day be notable it's not there yet.  I'm not an expert in this field so if anyone can show me evedience of how it meets either WP:NBOOK or the more general WP:GNG then I'll happily change my !vote but I can't see any evedience of notability at the moment (and yes I have read the above).  For transperency - I came here because of the ANI thread. Dpmuk (talk) 13:09, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If the society article is kept at it's AfD I'd support a merge and redirect as below. Dpmuk (talk) 23:00, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep, and merge into the article on the society. It would have been preferable not to start two articles. But the conferences are notable, and the encyclopedia is being published by the best known publisher in the world for this sort of topic, which adds to the notability. I'd prefer the article to be on the Society, as it does more than just take responsibility for the encyclopedia . There is a good 3rd party source, .  which lists the encyclopedia  as one of the key sources.     DGG ( talk ) 20:14, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge/redirect to Medieval Chronicle Society per DGG.--Arxiloxos (talk) 21:11, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Merge and redirect works for me, as the original author of the article, if that brings us closer to a resolution here. --Doric Loon (talk) 22:35, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Delete - I'm not seeing the third party coverage here - nothing on Google news, only passing mentions in Google books, and no reviews in Google scholar. Fails to meet the notability criteria. The fact that it may be notable eventually or that it's an impressive reference work doesn't allow us to ignore the notability requirements. If so, we'd have articles on all books published. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:26, 21 March 2011 (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.