Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oium


 * 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. Kept and applicable tags have been added to the page. (non-admin closure) Sulfurboy (talk) 14:54, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Oium

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The article is about a single word for Scythia in a 6th century book, which gave a Gothic origin myth. Nothing in the article is not better handled in other articles already, though can not specify one single article as being the most close (which means I can't think of a meaningful "merge to" option). The original article's creator has not edited since 2005. A period of efforts by good faith editors who raised concerns but found no new common vision going forward can be seen on the talk page. For a long time most edits have been minor or technical. Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:00, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 09:35, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 09:36, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. Krakkos (talk) 09:42, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Krakkos (talk) 09:42, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Krakkos (talk) 09:42, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Krakkos (talk) 09:42, 1 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep - This topic has received substantial coverage in the works of Dennis Howard Green, Omeljan Pritsak and others, and is the subject of a standalone article in the Reallexikon der Germanischen Altertumskunde. I believe the topic is notable. There is certainly room for improvement of this article, but that does not justify deletion, regardless of how long its been since "the original article's creator" has edited. Even if this topic is found non-notable, it should certainly exist as a redirect. Goths is a suitable destination for redirection. This way we may also be able to preserve the edit history. However, there is general consensus at Talk:Goths that that article should not go into deep details on Gothic origins. In view of that consensus and other reasons described above, i think this article should be kept. Krakkos (talk) 09:42, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Well-spotted concerning the RGA article which is here but it is not much like our article. Also worth considering simple conversion to a redirect, which could indeed eventually redirect to a section of Goths, Getica, or a new article about Origin stories of the Goths (as proposed recently by ). Although again the current article is not much use for building that either.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:14, 1 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Strong keep - the subject is obviously notable. Andrew Lancaster is on a blatantly POV mission here, making endless attempts to rewrite the entire history of all Germanic peoples, or even remove every mention of the word "Germanic", as can be seen from his edits on a large number of articles, using every trick in the book and then some, including posting impenetrable walls of text on all talk pages in order rto wear down all opposition. - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 10:05, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep but trim considerably. Most of the material appears to be irrelevant, but the RGA article provides a workable basis for an article. Srnec (talk) 22:24, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That is also the direction I am thinking now. I was worried that everything in this article is like an unmaintained B version of something in another article. The RGA shows a different possibility, but it requires a lot of trimming here, and I hope that is really possible in practice.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 05:57, 2 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Heavily prune -- There is certainly something here that ought to be kept, but it feels to me as if there is too much material here that is actually the history of Dacia, of the Goths, and of other groups. What is needed here is an article focusing on the word and historians' interpretation of its significance.  We are dealing here with a subject on the fringes of history where there are few documents and multiple interpretations of them, many of which are potentially valid, but most will involve speculative syntheses from those documents.  There may be a need for other articles to be created covering some aspects of the content with cross-references from this one.  Peterkingiron (talk) 15:56, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep but remove everything that is not covered by secondary RS directly in relation to "Oium". The current article relies to heavily on the primary source Jordanes, which violates the encyclopedic policies of WP. We're not writing excerpts and critical commentaries of historical primary sources here, that's the job our scholarly secondary/tertiary RS (e.g. the RGA). –Austronesier (talk) 14:53, 4 May 2020 (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.