Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of history

 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 redirect. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:55, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

History of history
del. Original research. I could have converted it into a redirect to Historiography, but I want othier opinions here. Mikkalai 06:15, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. History of histories, all is history saith the preacher? I don't think anyone looking for historiography will type this into the search box. --Angr/comhrá 06:29, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete unless someone adds credible sources and references. Zzyzx11 | Talk 06:31, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Historiography. --G Rutter 13:02, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Historiography. Good first instinct, after all there is a field that traces the historical phenomenon of history being recorded... -- 8^D gab 15:56, 2005 Apr 20 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Historiography. Much of the content should be junked, since none of it is sourced, but the concept itself should point towards the appropriate page, as I think it's quite possible that it'll get some hits from people who don't know the correct terminology. – Seancdaug 17:27, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
 *  Redirect , if I didn't know the correct terminology it's possible that I would have searched for this hoping that it would be a redirect to the correct article. Jeltz talk  19:09, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * No vote now since I have relaized that it might not be that good with an incorrect redirect. Jeltz talk  09:44, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Historiography.-Casito&#8669;Talk 23:41, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. In my opinion, Historiography is quite different from just a "history" of history.  The current History page covers all the possibilities with links.  What is on the current History of history page is just History and some original research, is it not?  It certainly is not "History of history."  ---Rednblu | Talk 02:34, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Historiography. Cheap and possibly useful to someone who blanks on the more correct name. FreplySpang (talk) 02:56, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, Rednblu is correct - Historiography is not exactly the history of history. A redirect there would be IMO incorrect. Megan1967 04:36, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Even though Rednblu is correct, enough people think that 'historiography' is a kind of 'history of history' to warrant the redirect (but I wouldn't recommend merging anything) Radiant_* 07:28, Apr 21, 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.