Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Witch-hunts Around the World


 * 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 Witch-hunt. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 21:50, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Witch-hunts Around the World

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This article has been recently created as a part of a larger project of university students writing on equality & related topics:. Unfortunately, a few of them have been redundant, see Women in the Workforce AfD. This article overlaps with a few others already, including Violence against women, Witch-hunt and Witch trials in the early modern period. As such, I think that this article should be redirected to the witch-hunt article, merged or deleted outright. AnandaBliss (talk) 22:06, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Witch-hunt, Agreeing with the nominator. The Witch-hunt article is pretty sufficient and thorough. Chirota (talk) 23:09, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect to witch-hunts. In this case it is a basic policy issue that is not effected by content. We should not have any "around the world" articles. That worked in the 1960s World Book that treated the US as normative and everything else as deviation. It also works as a pedagogical method for expanding children's knowledge, so you give 3rd graders assignments to study "Christmas around the world" for example. We are a world-wide encyclopedia published in English. We have uneven cover and flaws and even Dedhamania, but we strive to write articles that cover topics in a broad worldwide way. So Witch-hunts will cover the topic globally. Then if the level of sourcing justifies in we can created Witch-hunts in the Holy Roman Empire (which is where at least in Euro-American cultural space the vast majority happened, comparatively the broad expanse of British controlled North America had virtually none). I am not aware of how prevalent witch guy hunts were in other cultures like the Qing Empire of Songhay, so I will not say on a truly world-wide scale that was the biggest point of witch hunts. The point is witch-hunts treats the topic world-wide across time, and then if needed we have more specific articles. The only way to treat the matter differently is to assume some place as normative which does not work in an encyclopedia that aims to be global. I know enough to know we are not as global as we wish, we probably have more articles connected to Dedham, Massachusetts than Shanghai. There is no logical system that explains that oddity. Some other disparities are a result of source availability differences, both just existing, linguistic issues and accessibility of the information, but the one I mention is maybe a little driven by those but has a deeper issue. I know we will not ever be quite as global as we dream, just as I know full objectivity is not possible for a historian. However as one of my professors said on the subject "just because you know you cannot kill all bacteria by washing does not mean you let your children play in an open sewer." We can at least try to build an expectation of global reach in our coverage, and the first step to this is to not have any article with "around the world" in its title.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:44, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment there was at least one European country where over 90% of those accused of witch-craft were males, and many where clear majorities were. So this is really not a sub-set of violence against women.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:49, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment the witch-hunt article is far better than I expected although it could use some work. The section of witch hunts on the African continent I would argue could use some clearer breakdown on location. I also think the treatment of events 90 years ago as if they are contemporary is questionable. The section on India could use a clearer name. Also the fact that we are using 11 year old data seems to indicate a search for more recent sources would be helpful. Still on the whole it is a solid article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:07, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment As I said redirect. Do not merge. This article unlike the other one is atrocious. It is unencyclopedic in tone, and does not try to take a neutral point of view. The one article mainly is specific on where witch hunting it references is, although it fails to say which Congo is the location of one event, and some of the discussion on southern Africa would help from a review if it meets current guidelines on what makes to use for certain groups. This article does not even acknowledge there are countries in Africa.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:15, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect to witch-hunts. The article needs work, at the moment a somewhat confusing, but could become a good addition to the existing article. Edmund Patrick – confer 06:33, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect per the prior arguments. The name is worth having, I suppose, but this is a really weak article with nothing encyclopedic to speak of. I've seen more than a few problems come out of the narrow field of "educational groups writing about witchcraft" -- I once had to move an article on that topic that was at the name of a completely different person to its subject. (And the subject might not have existed...) It's odd that this specifically seems to cause so many problems. Vaticidalprophet 10:51, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect to witch-hunts as per all. Purosinaloense T/K 18:14, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect Both a fork and a stub that uses poor sources. Dimadick (talk) 20:40, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Witch-hunts, as they are similar articles. – Cupper 52 Discuss! 09:18, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Witch-hunt: Witch-hunt already contains info on witch hunts around the world. No reason for a second article. bop34 • talk • contribs 12:07, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:03, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:03, 21 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment, this article appears to be a commentary/discussion on a number of wikiarticles, that would be appropriate for their talkpages and/or discussions for article improvements on relevant wikiproject talkpages, it is not appropriate for a standalone article. not sure that a "redirect" is the way to go (how many other "around the world" redirects would need to be made for these sort of generic global subjects). Coolabahapple (talk) 00:26, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect for reasons listed above, and because the content of the article itself is so poorly written (introduces no real new information, consists basically of a several-paragraph student opinion essay). jp×g 00:50, 22 April 2021 (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.