Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Historiophoty

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was ambiguous.

The article was substantially changed very late in the discussion process. Taking into consideration the specific objections, the change made and the (few) changes of votes by the voters who did return to the discussion, I am going to call this one as a "keep as redirect". Rossami (talk) 05:00, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Historiophoty

 * del . (vote changed after recent change.) Neologism. A handful of google links, vast majority of which refer to the book article by Hayden White which introduces the word. Not to say that the article itself is of dubious correctness (the historiography phrase). Mikkalai 22:52, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * KEEP. The phrase in the article is a direct passage taken from Hayden White, it is very correct. Even if Hayden White were to invent the word, why would it not deserve an article? Hayden White is a leader in the field of Historiography and a highly notable author. There are 192 hits on Google. Over 10 references in published books (see A9.com). If deserves an entry. Stbalbach 23:30, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * If it is correct, then our "Historiography" article is incorrect or requires disambiguation. 192 word usages for such a broad notion means just this: neologism that didn't find its way into the mainstream yet. Mikkalai 00:21, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * That makes no sense at all. The terms are not the same they mean entirely different things, there is no need for disambiguation.
 * I am speaking about the disambiguation of the term "Historiography". Mikkalai 01:19, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I dont think you know what the term historiophoty means, or its context and relationship to historiography. Why would you need a disambiguation? Its nonsensical.Stbalbach 01:56, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * What is wrong with you? I am speaking about the term Historiography, not "-photy". I am saying the wikipedia definition of h-graphy is not how it is defined in Historiophoty article. Mikkalai 02:54, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Then edit the article .. why do you insist on deleting an article just because you dont agree with it? Stbalbach 03:35, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Look if you want to harp on "neologism" hang out in "recent articles" there are a few posted every hour. This term has legitimate notability, if for no other reason that Hayden White coined it, there is no reason it should not have an article, even if its new to you. If you object to it being one persons term and not widely known or used or whatever, you should address that in the text of the article like a normal editor, instead of pushing your POV through the VfD process. Stbalbach 01:11, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Please read wikipedia policies before giving advices. Precisely because of "being one persons term and not widely known or used or whatever" the article is fair game for VfD. Since it is also quite possible that my opinion is wrong, the deletion is a voted process. Mikkalai 01:19, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Please dont lecture me I know the rules. Hayden White is a very well known professional scholar. The term and the paper he wrote about it in is referenced in no less than 10 published books (see A9.com). As for "fair game", is this a game for you to delete peoples articles? Looking at your contributions it seems to be. I try to build Wikipedia, certain people try to tear it down, as a game. Edit the article if you dont like it. Thats the game. Stbalbach 01:28, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * the expression "fair game" refers to "Game (food)". I am sorry I have to lecture you in English, not on only in rules. The fact the term is mentioned in several books doesn't prove that it is in the mainstream use.  And in half of books it is in cautious phrases, kind of ...historiophoty, using the term of Professor Hayden White..., confirming this is a neologism. As for "seems to be", yes, from time to time I switch from the contributing work to the cleanup one. Mikkalai 03:06, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Then edit the article to reflect that. The fact it has 190+ google hits, is a term created by a well known and influential professional academic, and is referenced in no less than 10 published books makes it a term worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. The time and energy of this discussion should have been spent expanding the stub. Stbalbach 03:35, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to Historiography as a field of that type of research, lets be clear, the term was not used in a book it is from a single academic paper written by White--nixie 23:51, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge as per Nixie. Radiant_* 09:05, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge as per Nixie. --bainer 13:05, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as a neologism. If kept, however, I would argue that the merge and redirect might be more appropriate to Hayden White since all evidence suggests that he is the only user of the term and his article already links to Historiography.  Rossami (talk) 00:34, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Expanded the article.. additional context, history, use and sources. Stbalbach 05:08, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your work. What you did is called original research. Please provide what is called secondary sources that discuss historiophoty as discipline, not the primary sources that use the term, otherwise the deletion is due to the policy No original research. Mikkalai 05:24, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your opinion, Mikkalai. Stbalbach 05:47, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Renamed article to the title of Hayden Whites essay with a redirect of Historiophoty. Stbalbach 15:27, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * keep as redirect. Mikkalai 15:39, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.