Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Selimgate


 * 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 merge to Alan Mikhail.  Sandstein  17:24, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Selimgate

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Theauthor of the book is almost certainly notable ; the book might be; a separate article on a debate among historians about the quality of the book is not appropriate for an article. I tried to repurpose it for an article on the author, or even the book, but there's not enough to be useful  DGG ( talk ) 01:20, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge and/or redirect to Alan Mikhail, which now exists. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 04:41, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to Alan Mikhail, at least until an article about the widely reviewed book can be written. The current title is a Twitter hashtag neologism coined this month which has received no significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  05:01, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 05:02, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 05:02, 15 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Question. Would we have a WP:BLP problem if this definitely-not-neutral term redirected to the author? It looks like there's a bit of content that could be salvaged, so a merge would be preferable IMO, but not if we end up creating more problems with a merge. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 05:04, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * If it was done carefully, I don’t think a merge nor redirect would cause any problems. Foxnpichu (talk) 10:12, 15 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Merge to Alan Mikhail then historymerge and delete If it's kept, it should be tagged with R from non-neutral name. That said, I can't find more than cursory use of the hashtag, none of it RS, so it shouldn't be kept. WP:LABEL clearly applies. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 09:23, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge into Alan Mikhail - per the others. Foxnpichu (talk) 13:23, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Leave as independent page If you read the essays referenced on the page, you'll see that they are neither primarily about the author nor about his book. Selimgate is instead about broader debates in Ottoman history and global history. The debate involves half a dozen historians with their own wikipedia pages. There's plenty of scope and use for summary of debates on Wikipedia--see Ottoman Decline Thesis, Gaza thesis, Renegade thesis. The world history page is quite weak, and wikipedia needs better quality summaries of theories, approaches, and methodologies in the humanities. As for the title, a secondary debate about these reviews has taken place on social media, explicitly labeled Selimgate. It is notable that this debate has been between domain experts. Note too that the Selimgate page itself is a knowledge object for teaching: Will Hanley (talk) 15:08, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , It strikes me as rather disingenuous to claim that one tweet by a single professor expressing an intent to mention this article on a syllabus renders it a "knowledge object for teaching", and in any event it's unclear whether the tweet primarily comments on the WP article as opposed to its subject. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:16, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge into Alan Mikhail. This page and the material on it will be every bit as searchable, and more understandable to nonspecialists (the primary audience for Wikipedia) by being combined into the Alan Mikhail or God's Shadow (were it to be created) pages. Definitely not notable enough for a standalone page, & one notes that pages like Ottoman Decline Thesis, Gaza thesis, Renegade thesis, cited by proponents here, refer to debates of much wider scope, longer historical standing in the scholarship, many more scholars involved, and more general issues, rather than single books. A more relevant example would be Stephen Jay Gould's The Mismeasure of Man, which has been the subject of a far larger and more longstanding controversy at this point, and whose author is much better-known to the general public, but the debate about which is found only on the reception subsection of the book's page. 72.84.251.244 (talk) 21:51, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Preferably merge or if kept rename -- Alan Mikhail has two other books published by academic publishers, so that God's shadow (book) which this article might be renamed to is not pure nonsense, but perhaps a book making controversial and excessive historical claims. The book has attracted perhaps 8 reviews, of which at least one (I gather) rubbishes what it claims.  This may be a genuine controversy in academic historiography, but I do not think it deserves an article of its own.  If we are to have, it should focus on the book, rather than the critical reviews of it.  Peterkingiron (talk) 15:47, 18 October 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.