Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Historical realism


 * 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 and cleanup. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 06:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Historical realism

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

Appears to be original research ukexpat (talk) 19:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions.   -- ukexpat (talk) 19:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:OR. It looks like the editor who created the entire article is new and probably unfamiliar with policies. Nk.sheridan     Talk  20:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep but stubify or rewrite this is an awful article but it is a notable subject. A very very quick google scholar search brings up a journal article and a book review about the term.  These two sources on top of the list of sources at the page's bottom demonstrate notability.  While there are no footnotes and while the page is written utterly improperly, the subject is itself notable enough for an article.  I'd also point out that a discussion of this term appears in Dictionary of Concepts in History  .Any OR can be removed the page without having to the delete the article-- Cailil   talk 21:20, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Cailil hit the point quite neatly, while the article needs stubbing, the book he mentioned has a specific entry on the topic at page 366, and also quite extensive. Unless we want to pretend to know better than scholars and specialized encyclopedias, keeping this is simply obvious.--Aldux (talk) 22:09, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep but tag for "Wikify", and as "essay". This is potennially a useful article on the theory of history, but it looks like an extract from a good student essay, though uploaded with its bibliography and not its footnotes.  Peterkingiron (talk) 12:27, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. Good idea. DA   PIE EATER  14:26, 27 June 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.