Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interhistorical


 * 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. no prejudice against recreation as an appropriate redirect Beeblebrox (talk) 18:13, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Interhistorical

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Poorly sourced buzzword. Article mainly serves as WP:PROMO for the Oude Kerk, Amsterdam. Obvious WP:COI (http://artdaily.com/news/100514/Oude-Kerk-opens-a-radical-and-site-specific-exhibition-by-Christian-Boltanski) Kleuske (talk) 11:23, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions.  CASSIOPEIA(talk) 11:41, 29 March 2019 (UTC)


 * The article refers to an approach museums are using in response to Transhistoricity. A transhistorical approach in museums has works or artefacts spanning from different eras or movements kept separate, implying audiences draw ideas or conclusions retrospectively, and from individual time periods, outside of each other. The interhistorical approach, on the other hand, puts chronologies in conversation and/or confrontation, allowing conclusions to be drawn about the links in lineage that such time periods may have. The effect is a merging and meshing of time, where the beginning and end of an idea or perspective becomes more ambiguous (see the referenced article by Mieke Bal, under the section "in theory"). The Oude Kerk, Amsterdam section at the bottom of the article is given as an example for the way interhistoricity is used in museums. The invitation is open for other musea who use a similar method and approach to contribute to the article, since the section clearly states "in practice" JG@OudeKerkAMS (talk) 11:58, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Perhaps. But it needs independent, reliable sources to show that the term is actually notable. So far, only a few WP:PRIMARY sources (people coining the term) that are closely linked to the institution you seem to represent and which is mentioned prominently in the article have been cited. That is insufficient to meet the General Notability Guidelines and positively reeks of WP:PROMO. Kleuske (talk) 12:04, 29 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete this is rife with WP:OR (and shockingly promotional) as well as an WP:NOTESSAY. Praxidicae (talk) 14:26, 29 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment It seems a bit odd to use an adverb (Interhistorical) as a Headword. I'd suggest a redirect, where a subsection might cover this new approach, if there existed a reasonable target that discusses exhibition practices. I'm not sure that we have such an article. Vexations (talk) 22:33, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The article itself suggests a target when it says "This is often dubbed ‘transhistorical’". SpinningSpark 10:15, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete or delete and redirect. WP:PROMO and WP:NOTESSAY. SpinningSpark 10:15, 30 March 2019 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.