Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vandal Kingdom (2nd nomination)


 * 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. also WP:WITHDRAW by the nominator himself last March 3 (non-admin closure) Mediran  ( t  •  c ) 01:48, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Vandal Kingdom
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fork of Vandals. A similar fork was deleted at AfD around a year ago.  Spinning Spark  21:24, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep The article does indeed include some content from Vandals, although there is much original content as well. We do already have articles about Visigothic Kingdom, Ostrogothic Kingdom, Kingdom of the Lombards, Kingdom of the Gepids, among others, so i see no problem in having an article on this North African kingdom as well. If the similiarities between these articles are large, the reasonable solution in my view would be to shorten the section about the kingdom in the Vandals article. If you could give me some time, i'd be happy to do the work. Krakkos (talk) 21:56, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * At the moment it covers substantially the same ground as the Vandals article with mostly the same material. Shortening the section in the main article to summary style would certainly be necessary if this article is kept.  But it also needs a great deal more information to make it a truly new article.  Spinning  Spark  22:33, 2 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep: The Vandal Kingdom was an important political entity in the history of the Mediterranean region. It's definitely an encyclopedic topic and abundantly discussed in WP:RS as a Google Books search will demonstrate.  Vandals concerns the ethnic group itself, while the current article is about the political entity established by that group.  That seems a significant enough distinction to justify the existence of two articles.  I would also add that per WP:GEOLAND "populated, legally-recognized places are, by a very large consensus, considered notable" - and as a significant historical-geographic entity, the Vandal Kingdom should be deemed notable too.  As Krakkos already said, more work should be done to reduce duplication and further distinguish the content of the two articles, but this is a WP:SURMOUNTABLE problem which can be solved by editing, not deletion.  If necessary, the article could be cut down almost to a Stub by removing duplicated material, but it should not be deleted. --Mike Agricola (talk) 22:41, 2 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep WP:CFORK states "If the content fork was unjustified, the more recent article should be merged back into the main article." Deletion is therefore not appropriate.  The issue of splitting the topic of the North African kingdom from a more general article about the people is a matter of ordinary editing. Warden (talk) 23:52, 2 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep: it is true that the article as it stands is a content fork, but the topic is in itself worthy of an article. The Vandal Kingdom is not coterminous with the Vandal people, just as Greece is not with the Greeks, Russia with the Russians, etc. When writing articles on the era, one wants to link to a specific state (which included Vandals, Romano-Libyans and Berbers) and not just its dominant people. Constantine  ✍  02:19, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 3 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Withdraw nomination.  Spinning Spark  09:27, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep -- It may be necessary to prune Vandals, so that the two articles can grow separately. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:03, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * This should be done now, or else we should delete this article and let somebody start from scratch at their convenience. Srnec (talk) 04:17, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. If somebody wants to write an article on the Vandal Kingdom, they are welcome to do so, but this is just a history of the Vandals and totally repetitious. I support deletion as long as no real article on the Vandal kingdom exists, especially since this was in fact already deleted once. Srnec (talk) 04:17, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: It seems there are two issues here: the (a) topic itself and (b) the current state of the article. Regarding (a), the Vandal Kingdom was a notable political/geographical entity and is more than deserving of its own Wikipedia article.  WP:NOTE is easily satisfied with the numerous WP:RS available.  Regarding (b), WP:IMPERFECT states that "Collaborative editing means that incomplete or poorly written first drafts can evolve over time into excellent articles. Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome" (see also WP:POTENTIAL).  The article certainly needs cleanup and dedicated editing to add fresh content to distinguish it from Vandals, but deletion is not cleanup (WP:NOTCLEANUP).  I would also add that there's no deadline here (WP:NODEADLINE).  One step that can be taken to encourage speedier improvements/rewrites is to bring this to the attention of the folks at WP:HISTORY.  As a last resort, the duplicated material stemming from the content fork could be deleted and the article cut down a lot (perhaps even to a Stub) to provide a fresh basis on which to build the article.  Per POTENTIAL this would be preferable to deletion. --Mike Agricola (talk) 19:41, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. As Cplakidas explains, the subject is a state, and therefore it is deserving of its own article, separate from the article about the people. Everyking (talk) 17:10, 7 March 2013 (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.