Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Historical revisionism (disambiguation)


 * 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 per consensus. Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 03:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Historical revisionism (disambiguation)

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

Historical revisionism has a hatnote directing readers to Historical revisionism (negationism) in appropriate circumstances. There are no links to this page and there is no reason why a reader would find her/his way here. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 23:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete as nom — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 23:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong keep - The mainstreem view is, in my opinion, that there is only one "movement" associated with the two-term expression "Historical Revisionism", namely that of the Holocaust denial variety. Nevertheless, we have so far allowed our editors therein to make a distinction between good Historical Revisionism, and bad Historical Revisionism. Therefor, we are left with the need to Disambiguate. --Ludvikus (talk) 23:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * In the the alternative, I propose that we distinguish between Historical Revisionism (the bad kind) and Historical revisionism (the good kind). --Ludvikus (talk) 23:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment There is already a distinction being made in the hatnote at the top of Historical revisionism. There is no need for a disambiguation page. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 00:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. No need for a dab page when there are only 2 links. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. See Disambiguation, and Hatnote as there are only two meanings this page is not needed. I think that the creation on this page and the redirect under discussion here Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 May 5 shows a profound misunderstanding by Ludvikus of what disambiguation pages are for. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 22:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per Disambiguation, Occam's Razor, and general common sense. Boodlesthecat Meow? 00:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Discussion.
 * We all know (I hope) what Historical Revisionism means to the vast majority of people. It means Holocaust denial. By creating that small - inconspicuos - "head note" you have effectively created a platform by which the world will be educated that there really is such a scholarly field as Historical Revisionism, when in fact there ain't. And if you think there is - the least you could do is see to it that Wikipedia readers are informed that there are two kinds. And for that you need a Disambiguation page. Otherwise, when readers type into Google "Historical R/revisionism" Wikipedia will come up first (as Google made sure it would) and you will cause confusion as to the fact that the dominant notion is the holocaust denial variety. The least you could do, for the good of the world (as an encyclopedia), is let the public know that holocaust denial exists, and that it is closely, and fundamentally, associated with Historical Revisionism. By deleting this Disambiguation page you are effectively misinforming the public. For these reasons I ask that you reconsider and give your support to my proposal, namely, Keep. --Ludvikus (talk) 23:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * So Ludvikus, you're saying, for example, that this book must be about Holocaust denial because there "ain't" no scholarly field of historical revisionism? Boodlesthecat Meow? 00:26, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * No. I'm saying we need a clear Disambiguation page - so people know there are 2 kinds! --Ludvikus (talk) 00:44, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * And look at this DAB: Revision (click on it). What good is it? It's useless. We do not have an effective DAB --Ludvikus (talk) 00:48, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * And how about this: Revisionism (click on it). What does it do for us? --Ludvikus (talk) 00:51, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It sounds as if you're trying to apply WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, but that's a non-argument. B.Wind (talk) 04:46, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Now I know what that it is. But if you read it carefully, you'll find that it's you who violated that piece of advice.
 * My argument is clear all the three (3) related WP:DAB's are not doing their jobs - namely Disambiguate clearly and effectively between


 * 1) Historical Revisionism 1 and
 * 2) Historical Revisionism 2.
 * Just click on each, and you should get the point! --Ludvikus (talk) 12:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Ludvikus, if you're claiming that I've applied the WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument to this discussion, you are mistaken. This is only my second comment in here - you've replied to my first - and I have not made a recommendation yet as to what to do with the nominated article. Now if you're referring to anything that I've said at WP:RfD, I suggest to keep those comments separate from these here as they are to a different "audience". Still no recommendation... yet. B.Wind (talk) 23:03, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:D. Disambiguation pages are not needed if there are a primary article and a secondary article of the same name - a hatnote is all that's needed here. If there is a page of the form "AAAAA (disambiguation)" with "AAAAA" as a main article (with very few - like two - options), a fairly empty dab page should be made into a redirect to the main article. Please note that this is not a reflection on the validity of the "Historical revisionism (negationism)" article as any discussion of that will be done at the appropriate time in the proper forum, not now. B.Wind (talk) 23:27, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - the hatnote atop the Historical Revisionism page is all that's needed here. Dabpages without a single meaningful link to them have no reason to exist. Please stop trying to pretend that this debate has to do with the content of Historical Revisionism versus Historical Revisionism (negationism) - it does not. Merenta (talk) 02:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * There's no "pretending" on my part - only an effort to insure that the reading public does not confuse the two similarly named articles. --Ludvikus (talk) 09:17, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I understand completely - I wasn't WP:AGFing enough and treated you a bit harshly. Please accept my apologies. Merenta (talk) 11:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * End discussion. I appreciate the consesus regarding the usage of WP:Hatnotes. I'm therefore prepared to accept this as consistent with Wikipedia policy regarding the usage of Hatnotes. --Ludvikus (talk) 09:12, 11 May 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.