Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Normanism


 * 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. There is a general consensus against deletion here, without prejudice against a later merge, discussion about which can continue on outside of this AfD. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:05, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Normanism

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Why the page should be deleted This article tries to make the mainstream view of Scandinavians having a role in the creation of Russia into an -ism. Moreover, there is already a more developed article at Anti-Normanism that covers the historical debate. This article is more like righting a great wrong than an attempt at writing an NPOV article.--Berig (talk) 10:32, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: this deletion nominatiom was malformed. I have corrected it in a simplistic manner  Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 14:21, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:20, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep: The nomination edit summary states "Since the discussion has gone stale, I nominate this article for deletion instead" which I presume to refer to a merge discussion on the articles talk page. This is an interesting rationale for bringing to AfD. Setting that aside, I see a referenced article on the topic. I have not assessed it for the virtues of the merge discussion, but I do not believe a deletion discussion is the correct way to settle a content dispute.  WP:DRN is a far better place to do this fi the parties are identifiable, or WP:RFC if they are not. Other mechanisms exist.  Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 14:29, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * This is not a content dispute. The article is simply superfluous since there is already another article on the topic, and it has name that gives undue weight by presenting the mainstream view as just another -ism.--Berig (talk) 14:56, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Whatever the dispute is, I doubt deletion is the route forward. I apologise that I have mis-categorised it as a content dispute. Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 14:59, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The editor who wrote it is globally banned (if I understand "globally locked" correctly), so everything needs to be verified anyway.--Berig (talk) 15:00, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You have not changed my mind about my opinion in this discussion. If it requires verification then it requires verification. If it requires editing then it requires editing. If it requires merging then it requires merging, and so forth. For clarity I have no investment in the content. I am here because I saw that the discussion was malformed. I disagree with the nomination, and have said so. Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 15:05, 9 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment: Looking at the global account history the global lock was placed on 29 October following this Stewards Request. I checked the dates to seek to determine whether this was an "Article created by a blocked user", but can see insufficient data.  They are blocked on the bg WP " Злоупотреба с допълнителни потребителски сметки (марионетки):" which translates to "Abuse of additional user accounts (puppets):", also on es WP, and it may be that a an account used by this editor has been previously blocked on en WP. Without that information it seems to me that this article and this discussion should be treated at face value on its merits.  Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 16:48, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:43, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:43, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * Whether an article is superfluous, as the nominator says, is a content dispute.
 * The article is not superfluous, because it is needed to clarify Anti-Normanism as historical revisionism.
 * There is a reasonable argument that can be made for tagging the article G5, to let an administrator, or especially a steward, decide whether it should be deleted as work of a banned user. There is also an argument that I consider somewhat stronger why the G5 should be declined, because the editor had not yet been globally locked, and so was not evading a block or ban.  Also, if the article is deleted, a good-faith editor can resubmit it with proper attribution, which is in turn a reason why a good-faith editor can endorse the article and request that the G5 be declined.  Robert McClenon (talk) 17:56, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I do not at this time have an opinion as to whether it requires verification or editing. It does not require merging.  What would it be merged into?  Anti-Normanism?  That puts the cart before the horse.  Equids are not known for their ability to push wheeled vehicles.
 * Robert McClenon (talk) 17:56, 9 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep or (better still) Merge with Anti-Normanism (or reverse merge). We do not need two articles on this controversy.  The Anti-Normanism article is the better one of the two.  The foreign origin of the Rus' was regarded highly offensive in the Soviet era.  I am far from clear whether WP policy would prefer the article to be at Normanism, rather than Anti-Normanism.  Peterkingiron (talk) 18:46, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - There are two plausible arguments for deletion, but there are counter-arguments against both of them. First, the article was created by a banned sockpuppeteer.  Second, the article is superfluous to Anti-Normanism.  The timing is such that G5 does not apply, because the user had not yet been globally locked when the article was created.  Also, G5 is not intended to prevent the re-creation of pages created by banned users, and good-standing users, including User:Timtrent and User:Peterkingiron, agree that it contains useful information.  The article is not superfluous, because anti-Normanism is a reaction against Normanism.  After the article is kept, Anti-Normanism, which, as per Peterkingiron, is a better article, can be merged into it, with or without a formal merge request.  Robert McClenon (talk) 22:25, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * @Robert McClenon I go as far as the fact that it has cited content. Cited content suggests that it has notability, which is all it requires to survive a deletion discussion. My main thrust is that this is not an appropriate venue to solve a dispute, whether it be about content or about another aspect of the article.
 * I view the ultimate fate of this article and the anti article to be in the hands of editors once this AfD is resolved and closed. I am anticipating a closure that at retains the article, and suggest that it might even be a procedural close that this is the incorrect venue for this discussion Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 22:32, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Soft delete by merging to Rus' people . The article was evidently created as a POV fork of Anti-Normanism in order to promote a false balance: the mainstream view is that Norse people played a major role in founding Rus', and labeling this mainstream view "Normanism" is a means of articulating fringe positions. Anti-Normanism presents the history of the controversy, and Rus' people presents the mainstream view. Having a separate article on the mainstream view misleadingly suggests that it and the historical opposition to it deserve equal weight. The merger discussion has given rise to a suggestion that Normanism and Anti-Normanism be merged under the title Normanist controversy; that seems like a satisfactory title for those who dislike negative titles, but the mainstream view should be covered most extensively at the main article, not at an article on the (largely historical) controversy, so I do not advocate either merging Anti-Normanism into Normanism, as originally proposed, or having parallel redirects. Yngvadottir (talk) 10:06, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yngvadottir. Are you familiar with WP:MAD? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:22, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * If you mean Merge and redirect to Rus' people, I support this.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:24, 13 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep, even Speedy Keep, as there is no rational for deletion over merge or thoroughly restructure. Keep without predijice to a merge or smerge or redriect.   I support the Talk:Normanism as a good idea and it being allowed to progress without the shadow of this AfD.  There is a lot of historical uncertainty, and confusion, and confusing terminology.  Were the Swedish ancestors Normans?  Should the language be adjusted from "Norman" to "Scandinavian"?  Were the Normal/Scandinavian/Vikings who intermingled into Kievan Rus' a pure race, or were they already connected to the Slavs?  Is too much being made of the languages?  My guess is that "Normanism", referring to a Norman part in the ethnogenesis of the Rus' people belongs as a definition of the term, as used historically, in another article, and not as a stand along article, either Normanism  or Anti-Normanism. However, deletion is not the method to find consensus for an answer.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:22, 13 November 2021 (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.