Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National revival


 * 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   Keep Notable but needs improvement Mike Cline (talk) 14:39, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

National revival

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

I believe this falls in the CSD A3 category for speedy deletion, but a co-editor has a different opinion. JokerXtreme (talk) 19:04, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 *  Neutral  As the above-mentioned co-editor, I removed the A3 because the article does have "content" and A3 stipulates that even stub-level content passes muster -- it's a severe standard, as are all the speedy's. Article isn't just a collection of See Also's, it includes an encyclopedic definition of the concept (albeit a one sentence definition). That said, I'm neutral on the AfD -- the nomination doesn't give any reasons beyond the previous Speedy nom, and I disagree with that portion. I could lean either way on this (national awakenings/revivals are a noteworthy topic, but the article as-is really is just a list). ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  19:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose because it does not meet A3, it's useful content that should not be outright deleted. A merge or conversion into a list is a much more suitable option given that the stub never really developed independently. Mind, the original version that I put there had an explicit link to romantic nationalism, so that's a possible merge target. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 21:04, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * What content? It's one sentence and it's unsourced. It's not like a lot of effort went into this. --JokerXtreme (talk) 23:31, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The list means nothing to you? --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 22:42, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * This is a list:Discography. It's not a collection of see also links. It also has substantial content. If you want the article to be saved, you better change something about it, in a way that it will make it useful to have. --JokerXtreme (talk) 07:43, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete- it is one sentence that, if the original author felt necessary, could be added to other articles, but it does not warrant it's own. —Preceding unsigned comment added by E2eamon (talk • contribs) 00:50, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  -- JokerXtreme (talk) 07:45, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions.  -- JokerXtreme (talk) 07:45, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions.  -- JokerXtreme (talk) 07:46, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep or Merge/Convert to list Aw heck, I should weigh in since I'm involved in a semi-related AfD. The concept is notable, the list is a good one, and the nomination here doesn't give a reason for deletion beyond the above-mentioned A3, which doesn't apply to this article. I think Joy's thoughts above re: merging/converting are good ones if there is no consensus to keep the article as-is. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  09:21, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'm not opposed to merging. I'm not opposed to having an article about this concept either. What I'm saying is that it either has to be vastly improved or it should be deleted. Having this article in its current form is not worth it. --JokerXtreme (talk) 09:39, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: I don't understand. Standard policy is that articles that aren't perfect -- ie ones that need to be "vastly improved" -- should be kept in mainspace and worked on...certainly not -deleted-. With all due respect, I think your argument here is not valid, given that you are saying you have no problem with having an article about the concept. That it requires improvement is literally not grounds for deletion unless the article is in such catastrophic disarray that a fundamental, ground-up rewrite would be required (which is not the case with this stub, natch). If you think we shouldn't have an article on the topic, that's another thing, but you say you aren't opposed to that so... to me, you have no valid basis on which to argue for deletion. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  17:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment Maybe re-name to "List of national revival movements"? Just a thought. --MelanieN (talk) 22:27, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That might be a good idea. Right now the article seems to imply that all national revivals are successful. I'm tending towards keep. Steve Dufour (talk) 09:20, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 09:08, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep. Meets minimal content requirements, may yet develop into a proper article, or perhaps WP:SETINDEX. GregorB (talk) 19:29, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep but expand Patently significant phenomenon. The problem is probably that Macedonians are willing to take the time to write about the Macedonian National Revival, Latvians about the Lativian National Revival and so forth, but no Wikipedian  has yet made time to write about national revivals as a phenomenon.  Someone will, because the topic is obviously notable.  But be careful what you wish for... this is a highly politicized topic.AMuseo (talk) 13:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Too vague and too general in scope and likely to become a WP:COATRACK for nationalist POV pushing. If there is a potential for a reasonable article here, it should be first developed in user-space to a semi-reasonable form, before being posted in mainspace. Nsk92 (talk) 15:58, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - within a handful of clicks, I also found national mysticism as another similarly small article, that is marked as a merge candidate. However, the proposed target, historiography and nationalism is tagged OR and NPOV. FWIW. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 21:45, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep CSD A3 doesn't apply + easily more than a notable topic: 7,480 returns on google scholar and 1,970 on google books.--Termer (talk) 02:26, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is notable and widely publicized phenomenon.Biophys (talk) 03:55, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, although there is a lot of work, probably merging, to do. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:56, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Appears to be sufficient scholarly consideration of the concept to make it notable. --Mkativerata (talk) 02:39, 16 March 2010 (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.