Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nouvelle histoire


 * 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. Courcelles 22:35, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Nouvelle histoire

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This doesn't seem to satisfy WP:NEO; the single cited source isn't enough to establish notability (which requires multiple independent, reliable sources). I tried a Google search for "nouvelle histoire", and most of the hits appeared to be about a fabric collection by Vlisco. If this article is to be kept, it needs more sources; it needs to make clear whether it's talking primarily about "nouvelle histoire" or "new history"; and it needs to define the term more clearly. If this concept really is notable enough for a Wikipedia article, there ought to be plenty of people writing stuff about it. Rich wales (talk · contribs) 21:36, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. There is indeed an international scholarly literature in three languages on the topic. I have added several of these and also a discussion of the reaction in Germany. The article now cites four books and two articles, in English, French and German. Note that half these scholarly sources use "Nouvelle histoire" in the title, so it's more than glancing mention. Rjensen (talk) 23:08, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 21:58, 19 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep: Notable. Joe Chill (talk) 23:39, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep: This article is about a historiographical trend that has been important in the development of the discipline not only in France but in Germany, the U.S. and other nations too, and sufficiently different from the annales school to warrant an article. Sure, it's a stub now, but it's notable enough for inclusion.  R. D. Jones (talk) 15:31, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep clearly a notable topic; full-length books about it. The article could be renamed if this neologism is not the most appropriate title. That's not a good reason to delete the content. The article is certainly not a dictionary entry. FuFoFuEd (talk) 13:00, 22 August 2011 (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.