Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rise of nationalism in Europe


 * 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. If a merge is thought best, it should be discussed on the article's talkpage and listed at WP:PM. WjBscribe 10:00, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Rise of nationalism in Europe

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Unreferenced content fork. Biruitorul 21:33, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Update: the author asked for further details, so here: Whatever useful content there is in there can easily be moved to Romantic nationalism, Zionism, etc. It's also rather pat: the article takes a broad, disparate subject and tries to force some artificial contours around it. Better to leave that for the pre-existing articles, in my view. Also it's vague: nationalism has come in waves over the past two centuries. One could speak, for instance, without too much exaggeration, of a rise in nationalism in Europe just since the 1990s (BNP, FN, NDP, FPÖ, etc). Plus, the article lacks any sort of meaningful references, and it reads like a school essay. Since we already have similar articles, we really don't need this one. Biruitorul 19:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Verifiability says that attribution is required for direct quotes and for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged. I see occassional sentences that I see might be challenged, and certainly one might trace this subject further back in time for earlier nationalistic sentiments, but I have not seen anyone challenge the theme and main points nor do I see this to be more likely to be challenged. So why delete? I am not voting here (yet), since I prefer discussion and consensus. DanielDemaret 09:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep I believe that this article deals with an interesting historical subject, and is worthy of its place on this site. Surely if adequate citation etc. is added this article should not be deleted. Consider this.(p.s I would like to remind Biruitorul that this article deals with European nationalism and not specifically Irish nationalism, hopefully that will allay his fears.) TerritorialWaters 10:40 (UTC) 6 May 2007.


 * Comment - ha! Only somewhat. No mention of the traitor de Valera, though, which is a good thing. Biruitorul 17:49, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Nomination fails to say what they believe this is a content fork of, so I cannot properly evaluate it. Edward321 14:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - I'd say it has elements of Romantic nationalism. Biruitorul 16:20, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Thanks for listing that. I'll try to compare the articles and see if that affects my opinion. Edward321 23:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per nomination. People also forget that content forks also give the existing articles (forked from) problematic, by separating issues best dealt with in one place, which makes them even worse. Dahn 16:52, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. Notable subject, but if its just a content fork, then delete and merge - however I don't see what article is it a content fork of?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 20:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Probably Romantic nationalism, where any useful content can be merged. Biruitorul 20:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak merge with Romantic nationalism and redirect there.--Ioannes Pragensis 20:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep I agree with Edward321. I also cannot properly evaluate it due to lack of information about what it forks of. Sweboi 22:15, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * As I've said twice: Romantic nationalism. Biruitorul 22:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - it's unreferenced. That alone is enough to justify deletion.  You don't need to know what's it's fork of to see that it has zero references.Hatch68 14:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Lack of references is a sign the article needs improvement. If every article that lacks references was deleted, I suspect most of Wikipedia would go away. Edward321 23:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment You mean starting with the article on Physics, Edward?DanielDemaret 14:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - an AfD is not an improvement drive. The lack of references is just the tip of the iceberg. If you look at the top of the page, you'll now see a more thorough explanation of why. Moreover, since the author is still with us, maybe he could give an idea of what his references are, and address at least one of my concerns. Biruitorul 00:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. Fork of content offered elsewhere with adequate references. Also prosaic title less likely to reflect encyclopedia content and more an essay (a well-referenced article Nationalism in Europe would probably get my support). JFW | T@lk  20:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete no reliable sources--Sefringle 05:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. Yes, the article is not that great, but it is different from Romantic nationalism. I am sorry, Biruitorul. Any way, there is no consensus here.Biophys 23:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - that's OK, Biophys - it would be boring if we agreed on everything. However, I still believe that whatever useful information in here is covered either there or in articles like Zionism, and that the attempt to bring them all together under one heading - particularly as no references are provided to tell us if any published sources have done so - is an unnecessary endeavour. Biruitorul 06:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep Neither this nor the Romantic nationalism begins to do an adequate job of treating this very important and encyclopedic topic. A lot of work is needed on both articles but I see Romantic nationalism as the concept and the Rise of nationalism in Europe as a specific instantiation of the concept.
 * when this AFD is done, I might propose moving this artaicle to Rise of nationalism in 19th century Europe
 * --Richard 08:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment - I agree that Romantic nationalism is far from perfect at the moment. However, why not treat the subject within the same article? Why fork it? How does having two articles on the subject improve Wikipedia? Biruitorul 19:11, 11 May 2007 (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.