Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lost history


 * 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. RL0919 (talk) 22:42, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Lost history

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

This is pretty much a copyright violation. The intro has simple been copied from here: https://mysteriesrunsolved.com/2020/06/lost-human-history.html

The rest of the article is also a copy of the same source, but only the titles, not the text underneath each one of them.

The source isn't even in the list of references. --Bageense(disc.) 09:40, 24 December 2021 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TonyBallioni (talk) 22:08, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. --Bageense(disc.)  09:40, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete G12. Mccapra (talk) 22:11, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete 'Nuff said.TH1980 (talk) 05:48, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Why think that the WP article that is over a decade old is copied from ... whatever that is, dated to September this year? Srnec (talk) 18:41, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * That's why I chose to open this discussion instead of tagging the article for speedy deletion. In the Portuguese Wikipedia, there is a rule according to which you can't speedy delete an article that is too old or has lots of edits. --Bageense(disc.) 20:15, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * You have only answered the question of why you didn't tag this for speedy deletion, not why you thought that this could possibly be a copyright violation. Once again, how can an article that was created in 2004 be a copy of a web page that was created in 2020? Do we have a time machine? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:43, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep -- This seems to be a harmless list. This may not be a case of WP copying a website, but the website copying WP, a well-known phenomenon: we frequently have editors with dodgy facts citing old versions of WP, still reflected in WP mirrors.  Peterkingiron (talk) 14:54, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete thanks to Srnec Phil Bridger for challenging the copyvio claim. Thinking it was a copyvio sealed the deal for me but even if it isn’t, I’m still not sure this article should be in mainspace. It looks like a fairly random list, likely OR. The term “lost history” has some general use but whether it has a specific enough meaning to be usefully covered by this list, I’m not sure. Some of the list items here are “lost items of jewellery” rather than “lost history”, and the article creator the self describes some of it as “legendary or dubious”. The library of Alexandria isn’t “lost”, it just doesn’t exist any more, like a lot of ancient stuff. The FIFA trophy? What does that have in common with Troy or the Lost Ten Tribes of Israel? It’s really an odd mishmash of stuff collected under one title. Mccapra (talk) 07:04, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Weak Delete I don't think wikipedia copied this article based on the dates, but I think this list is pretty ambiguous what counts as 'history' and most of the entries on here would be better in a more specific list . So I vote delete unless there is a clear criteria what should and should not be included. Mousymouse (talk) 21:19, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete - per concerns of WP:OR. There is no real source being used in the article to actually describe the topic, or why this particular grouping of subjects should be covered together.  It seems less like coherent topic, and more like just a list of random subjects that have the vaguest connection to one another, whose grouping as a single topic is pure WP:OR.  Rorshacma (talk) 23:39, 6 January 2022 (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.