Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neolithic Subpluvial


 * 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 no consensus. The !votes on this one are really all over the board, but there seems a rough consensus that outright deletion is not a good solution. I am closing this therefore as "no consensus". Possible mergers, redirects, or renames can be discussed on the respective articles' talk pages. Randykitty (talk) 12:14, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Neolithic Subpluvial

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The topic and most of the information of this article is already covered by African humid period (Some sources), which is a lot more complete and is under a more commonly applied title: few hits for Neolithic Subpluvial, far more African humid period hits. This title probably would make a fine redirect, though.

There was already a merger discussion in January-February, which ended with a "no consensus" result due to lack of participation. Discussion with the closer, I am reproposing this at AFD as one of the suggestions in the merger discussion by the editor who opposed the merger was that NSp be deleted and only very little content be copied over. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:50, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:58, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:58, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment (veering towards merge). The question is how to deal with and what to call the prehistoric period when the Sahara was not yet a desert.  This article and African humid period are covering the same period, but this one from a more humid period than the other.  I would question the use of the term "Neolithic", which normally refers to cultures engaging in farming, but the references to human culture refer to hunting and gathering and to fishing, not agriculture.  The use of pottery probably implies the people were settled, not nomadic.  I am not an expert in this field, but unless there is a widely accepted term, I would suggest merging both to Sahara humid period or some such title.  Peterkingiron (talk) 15:55, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Second thoughts -- I see that in the merge discussion there was justified criticism of the length of the target article. I would suggest that the answer is to merge some material from that article to this one, leaving African humid period as a general article on the whole continent, with content on the Sahara (and Sahel) much summarised.  Unfortunately this requires an the attention of an expert on the subject, which I am not.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:01, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The problem I see with merging to Saharan humid period is that that term is essentially unused unlike "African humid period" or even "Neolithic Subpluvial".
 * As for merging material from AHP to NSp - since I am familiar with the topic (and actually wrote the AHP article) - I could actually do it but I am not convinced that it would be the right move; Earlier it was thought that it had started about 9,000 years ago, before it was found that it probably began earlier and was interrupted by the Younger Dryas.[42] Alternatively, wet conditions in the Sahara and Sahel began about 10,900–10,500 years ago.[69] in the AHP article strongly implies (although not explicitly states) that early research did not recognize that the humid period began before the Neolithic and thus incorrectly christened it the "Neolithic subpluvial". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:11, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * For the record, I don't necessarily disagree that AHP does merit a split (personally I think an unified article is better as this is one coherent broad topic), I just don't think that NSp has a reason to exist separate from AHP for the reasons given in the nomination (a split of AHP would probably be along the lines of Effects of the African humid period in the Sahara and other section-based splits, not one by time period). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:25, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   12:19, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete This is a pretty straightforward case of content duplication under a less-common synonym and at lower quality. Based on that, it's an obvious delete (or redirection). Regarding the desirability of splitting African humid period, that's an unrelated issue - if there was to be a split, it very likely should not be to a synonym of the overall topic. (I would also agree with the observation made in the mini merge-discussion that almost half the page size is due to the choice of using short form citation plus bibliography; if you list every source five times, things have a tendency to balloon.) -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:48, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Strong keep but with solving of any and all problematic issues (duplication, moving to better title, whatever). In complement to previous User:Elmidae remark: yes, this is a pretty straightforward case, only in protectionism of one's own work - yes, African humid period is promoted to "Good" status while Neolithic subpluvial is at "C", and they look like a duplicates - only there is one glaring problem: Neolithic Subpluvial was created in August 2007, while African humid period was created in December 2018‎ and by the same user who nominated NS for deletion, at that!
 * This means that 11 years prior to User:Jo-Jo decision to create entire article, another article that already covered exactly the same subject already existed, not the other way around as User:Jo-Jo hurried to point out in his nomination intro.
 * I am sorry but if esteemed user screwed-up by not checking if Wikipedia already dealt with the subject‎ under some other title, regardless of its accuracy, suitability and relevance, then user should seek to alleviate problem without employing such a drastic measure like deletion of preexisting article. From here all emerging problems could be resolved, one way or another.
 * I strongly suggest that NS gets some thorough check-up and rewrite, if agreed maybe better title (move), and to be turned into an article covering subject more specific locality-wise. This means I agree with User:Peterkingiron second entry on this - I see answer in merging some of the material from Neolithic subpluvial to African humid period, thus making AHP sort of general article on the whole wider subject, while more specific content dealing with the Sahara and Sahel then summarized under AHP, but extended under Neolithic subpluvial or any title of collective choosing.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  22:01, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, yeah, I did write AHP but that's because the term is much more commonly used than NS nowadays. Think a case where an old concept gets a new meaning that then becomes much more common. I don't think that "but this page came first" is really a policy/guideline. I am not seeing evidence that NS is used as a Sahara-specific variant of AHP so I'd oppose keeping NS in this form per WP:OR. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:19, 26 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep - I arrived at this article while searching for prehistoric cultures that existed in the Sahara desert before its complete desertification, such as the Tenerian culture. I agree that very few people will come to this article by searching the term Neolithic Subpluvial on Google, but some might get here by searching for Green Sahara or Wet Sahara, which are much more commonplace words. Since the article states that "The Neolithic Subpluvial was the most recent of a number of periods of "Wet Sahara" or "Green Sahara", during which the Sahara region was much moister and supported a richer biota and human population than the present-day desert", here's a solution for this article's overlap with the African humid period: Rename this article into either Green Sahara or Wet Sahara and make it about all the periods of time when what we now today as the Sahara was greener and wetter. There's plenty of references that use the term Green Sahara   — Preceding unsigned comment added by PraiseVivec (talk • contribs)
 * Just to clarify, is "this article" Neolithic Subpluvial or African humid period? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:24, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah, as I reread my comment, I see how it could have been confusing. I was proposing renaming the Neolithic Subpluvial into Green Sahara, as it would make the article more findable and, by dedicating the article to all the periods that are included in the Green Sahara, not just the most recent (although I suspect that would still make up the lion's share of the article), would also make the overlap with the African humid period less striking. PraiseVivec (talk) 11:03, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation. I was wondering about writing an article about Green Sahara or the better documented stages such as the Eemian African humid period as well, but desisted as African humid period was already a pain to write. I am not sure if Neolithic Subpluvial would make a good starting page though as it's entirely concerned with the Holocene stage. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:27, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

---

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   12:40, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Why is this here at AFD? Does anyone think that an administrator using the deletion tool to remove an edit history is involved in enacting what you want?  I don't think that AhmadLX actually really did, but rather that xe was talking of blanking and redirecting.  And Elmidae is talking about redirection, too.  It's clear that you collectively want something at this title, be it a plain old redirect or a sub-article.  The editing tool that we all have can get us there, and the renaming tool that people with accounts have can address the ideas of renaming mooted above, with moving over largely history-free redirects being a simple housekeeping matter should the occasion arise.  The closing administrator either does or does not hit that delete button, little more, and certainly isn't a topic restructuring service.  To me, it seems that no-one is advocating any Articles for deletion outcome other than the closing administrator not hitting the delete button.  Please speak up, if you are, and explain why deleting the edit history here is important.  Uncle G (talk) 01:42, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * ...do I gather from the above that you, an administrator, are not aware that a) redirection is a very common outcome of AfD discussions, and b) AfD is also the forum for discussing potentially contentious redirections? You amaze me. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 02:07, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * No, that is not what AFD is for. It's in the name: Articles for deletion.  Only bring things here if an administrator hitting the delete button and removing an article and its entire edit history is what you actually want.  A closing administrator is not an editing service.  Redirects can be enacted by anyone who has the ordinary edit tool, and are discussed on talk pages.  Contentious article mergers are also discussed on talk pages.  And yes, the administrator who originally wrote the Guide to deletion is telling you this.  Uncle G (talk) 04:29, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * That administrator appears to be somewhat out of touch with current usage and outcomes then. If you'd like, I can prepare a breakdown of how many recent AfDs were closed as redirects, and how many were started with the express premise of replacing an article with a redirect. E.g., coming from a NPP perspective, the category of "stuff that keeps getting recreated as articles but fails notability criteria, and requires a documented decision in either direction" at AfD is substantial, and can NOT be sorted out on talk pages (for the simple reason that no one is watching these yet). If the single purpose of AfD was ever "delete editing history y/n", it most certainly has not been for my (shortish) tenure. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:38, 1 July 2019 (UTC)


 * The important thing here is the outcome. Does it really matter where we discuss it? –&#8239;Joe (talk) 08:32, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes. AFD is a perennially overloaded process; and you needlessly involve and expend the time of the few people who volunteer to close AFD discussions.  Please have some consideration for other volunteers.  And by discussing things here you tie yourselves to the AFD discussion timetable, which usually this sort of discussion does not need.  You've been asked directly, now, whether anyone needs the deletion tool in any way, with things that otherwise can be sorted out by ordinary editors on article talk pages.  Unless someone actually steps up and gives a good reason for that, don't be surprised if you soon find yourselves with a closed AFD discussion and back on those very same article talk pages.  Because determining that there is no consensus for, or indeed no-one at all wanting, the delete button being hit and that people are quite capable of sorting this out for themselves with non-administrator tools is really all that AFD needs do.  The only outcome that you will get from the process is a decision not to delete; you certainly won't get a complex   topic restructing enacted, and the work will still be ordinary editing that you will end up discussing on talk pages anyway.  AFD is not Requests for comment, Requested mergers, or even Cleanup; it is for deletion. Uncle G (talk) 11:32, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * To be honest, the main reason why I did send the topic here was because a full redundancy between two articles is under WP:DEL-REASON #5 a reason for removing an article and because AFD does get a lot more commentary than a merger discussion (as can be seen by the course of the merger discussion referenced before, where despite some publicizing and waiting only two people commented). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:44, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Merge with African humid period or redirect if there's nothing worth merging (seems like there's quite a lot of cited text though). African humid period is clearly the contemporary common name based on Google Scholar results. Deletion is inappropriate per WP:RETAIN, since this good material on a notable topic. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 08:32, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename as per PraiseVivec.Tamsier (talk) 10:07, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Redierct to AHP. When voting on merge proposal, I hadn't thought of history & contributions of others to Neolithic Subpluvial. Keeping that in view and Uncle G's comment above, blanking and redirecting is the best solution IMO. Keeping this should be no option. It is a tiny fork of AHP, nothing else. With merge, I have the same problem. Now AHP is even bigger: 280 240 kb. But still it is better option than keep.  AhmadLX - )¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 17:52, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename as per PraiseVivec. Abstrakt (talk) 12:20, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment What is the rationale for renaming? What will it do? The article will still be a low quality duplicate of AHP.  AhmadLX - )¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 13:30, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I think that wants to have an article for the general Green Sahara concept, not limited to its Holocene manifestation. I don't think that there is any useful material for this concept on the NS page; one would have to write such an article entirely from scratch. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:51, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * . Yes, it is essentially equivalent to creating a "new" article. We don't need to keep this one for that. There is no guaranty that NS will be expanded and if we keep it for later expansion, it will linger on as a duplicate of AHP for long. If somebody is actually interested in having a broader article, creating new one shouldn't be a problem I think.  AhmadLX - )¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 18:42, 7 July 2019 (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.