Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The public scandal of the Dreyfus Affair


 * 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 redirect to Dreyfus Affair.  Sandstein  16:02, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

The public scandal of the Dreyfus Affair

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is likely a copy-paste of a public domain source, which in itself is not a problem, but it is basically a bad fork of Dreyfus affair: shorter but with more peacockery, less information, and some POV. It is not a good place for a redirect title, either, but it may be worth considering for history or avoiding to break links. Tigraan Click here to contact me 14:52, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:41, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:41, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:41, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:43, 4 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Note The issue is wider than just this on article - as there is a part of a series - which includes Investigation and arrest of Alfred Dreyfus, Trial and conviction of Alfred Dreyfus, Picquart's Investigations of the Dreyfus Affair, Others look into the Dreyfus Affair, The public scandal of the Dreyfus Affair, J'accuse…!, and Resolution of the Dreyfus Affair -- which together cover the entire affair (in individual articles linked in a series). I suggest you take up the entire group of pages - and not just The public scandal of the Dreyfus Affair - taking out just this one wouldn't make sense.Icewhiz (talk) 16:08, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * And more, see: Category:Dreyfus affair.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:57, 5 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep In September 2002, Dreyfus Affair was expanded by adding content from the Jewish Encyclopedia . In December 2003, the article was split into sub-articles - each of the articles Icewhiz notes were created then, I think. In April and May 2007, the French wikipedia article was expanded, largely based on Jean-Denis Bredin, L'Affaire, Fayard, Paris, 1993 . In March 2013, the English language Dreyfus Affair article was expanded largely by translating the French language article . Now, and since 2013, the English language Dreyfus Affair article is of similar length to what it was in December 2003 before it was split up. In my opinion, the section, Dreyfus affair should be merged into the article The public scandal of the Dreyfus Affair and trimmed. The same is true about the other articles. Smmurphy(Talk) 18:33, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment -- the Dreyfus Affair was itself a scandal (it says so in the opening sentence). Is this article about the "Public scandal of the Dreyfus scandal"? This does not quite make sense. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:32, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * That is a good point; if kept perhaps the article should be renamed Public response to the Dreyfus Affair. Also, it seems like the Jewish Encyclopedia article this is based on was written less than ten years after the trial, so I agree that some serious refimprove is needed. Smmurphy(Talk) 23:19, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I think that the current Dreyfus_affair does an excellent job of covering the reactions & with good sources, while the article under discussion is a reproduction of a dated document. I'd say delete -- if someone want to expand on what's in the main article, they should feel free to do so. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:54, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:54, 4 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment -- the Dreyfus Affair is already a large article with a series of "main" sub-articles. What we probably need is to keep the detailed main articles and to trim the general article back to a reasonable length.  There are whole books on the affair.  An encyclopaedia should not be reproducing books, or even full-length academic articles.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:37, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete/Redirect to Dreyfus Affair. The parts taken directly from a public-domain source are more appropriate content for Wikisource than Wikipedia.  As a stand-alone article, the content quality is too low to justify keeping the article as written, WP:TNT. Power~enwiki (talk) 23:03, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Dreyfus Affair. Anything useful can be merged.  The 2003 split was a bad idea and should be repealed.  If there is some specific aspect the Dreyfuss affair that is notable, then that justifies a separate article, but splitting based on simple length metrics has resulted in the sub-articles not keeping up with quality improvements in the main article.  The solution to an article that is too long is summary style, not arbitrary chopping.  On the other hand the edit history of the page should be retained because of its age, long edit history, and relation to the main article. SpinningSpark 15:16, 13 May 2017 (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.