Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of 18th – early 19th century sources on Souli and Souliotes

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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 delete. If anyone wants a copy to work from to merge (very selectively) back into Souliotes, let me know. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:41, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of 18th – early 19th century sources on Souli and Souliotes

edit

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

List of 18th – early 19th century sources on Souli and Souliotes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is a POV fork of Souliotes. It is a mere collection of 18th and 19th century travelers' accounts on the tribe of Souliotes. Almost all of the said sources are totally unreliable due to not having any academic value. After a discussion on the talk page of the Souliotes article, the community consensus was to not use 18th and 19th century sources that are not supported by modern scholarship. After that, the author created this article in a gross breach of WP:Consensus. This article, as it stands now, counters with WP:POV, WP:PRIMARY, WP:Cherrypicking and WP:AGE MATTERS. It even does not give context to its own content. Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:25, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:30, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:30, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:30, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:31, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Arrangement of rules like WP:POV, WP:PRIMARY, WP:Cherrypicking and WP:AGE MATTERS are irrelevant here. The entries of a list are not "sources", but a series of items that are or were notable for some reason. In this case, everyone of the entries is notable for 2 reasons: (a) it refers to a subject (Souliotes) which is notable, and (b) every entry is a notable source about Souliotes, either because it is accepted as credibe or because is dismissed as non credible. For example, a search with "Perraivos + Souliotes" in books.google gives about 1.000 hits, many of them contemporary academic works.--Skylax30 (talk) 20:26, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it's 590[1]]. But anyhow, this doesn't prove much. We already have the page Souliotes. What you're claiming is notable is the crap people said specifically in the 19th century about them. The notability of specifically that, separating it apart from what actual modern scholarship says is... very hard to justify, and you haven't done one iota of justification for your page created to circumvent a consensus.--Calthinus (talk) 06:58, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Ktrimi991. In addition to the pretty severe issues already listed, there is also a question of notability. Does anyone except for a few Greek nationalists actually care what people who nowadays would be considered quite ignorant wrote about a mostly irrelevant and remote tribe over a century ago? No. --Calthinus (talk) 02:15, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep The above users confuse the lists with the articles. A list of books is a list, and doesn't mean that the entries of the list are scientifically reliable or anything. There are plenty of book lists in WP, and none includes only "reliable" entries. See e.g. Bibliography of King Arthur. I don't understand the rationale of the latter post. If Souliotes are notable and have article, so are the books about them. Or, if there are lots of books about them, they are notable. Finally, if someone browses the history and the talk page talk page of the article Souliotes (5 archived volumes) he will understand it's not about a "mostly irrelevant and remote tribe".--Skylax30 (talk) 13:25, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note. May I remind everybody the rule that in discussion like this, not "votes" but arguments count. Therefore, repeating the same and the same, or just posting "delete" (like former Tzeronymo did) is pointless. Initially i insisted adding these sources in the article Souliotes because I thought that that is the proper place. If they cannot be in an article, does not mean that they cannot be in a list just because some understand it as a "fork".--Skylax30 (talk) 20:08, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Whew, spicy, but he actually cited policy....--Calthinus (talk) 06:55, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying that you want the deletion purely on policy concerns?--Skylax30 (talk) 09:33, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Its quite clear on what grounds editors have outlined their reasons for deletion. And @Skylax please sign off on your comments, otherwise the discussion can become difficult to follow without knowing which comment belongs to a editor.Resnjari (talk) 13:05, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK sorry. I am just reminding to some of us that this is not a gallop but a dialogue on arguments and rules.--Skylax30 (talk) 09:33, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Rules. WP allows for lists, including Bibliography lists. There is already a big Category on bibliographies, including Bibliographies by subject. --Skylax30 (talk) 09:40, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But @Skylax your editing on the article was not to expand the further reading section (you made absolutely no attempt to expand it and to see how that would have went) but to add content to the body that was wp:primary. Its why for me this article is a wp:fork.Resnjari (talk) 09:47, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ι don't understand. If you propose that this list can be in the article, yes it can. You may add it there, as well. But if you don't want there "primary", this doesn't mean that they should vanish from the whole wikiproject.--Skylax30 (talk) 11:56, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
ok i'll explain. You added content to the article using many of these sources. Those additions were reverted for being wp:primary etc and as it went into wp:or. You never suggested anything for an addition to the Further Reading section (which has existed for some time now). Then after all those events of this and that you then created this article and added to these sources your interpretation of them of what they contain, so i.e it becomes a wp:fork of you trying to get the information into the article through another away. Adding some of these sources to the Further Reading section would just be the source itself without additional explanations as you have done here with some of them like about Yochalas (why does a reader need to know he can speak Arvanitika? Article is about Souliotes, not him. Otherwise every academic's multilingual skills in relation to Souliotes need to be cited. Another one. Why do we have to know about Hobhouse and his travels. Alongside the ref all one needs is pp ... on Souli and pp... Souliotes. The reader can then chase it up themselves. Also having a separate list does not work as not much has been written on the Souliotes. I am familiar with the sources and scholarship and what you have included in your list is more or less whats out there with another 2-3 travellers. Something like the subject on King Arthur has a corpus of litreture produced back centuries and still going on into the modern era, hence a separate article. With this topic the case does not stack up.Resnjari (talk) 13:08, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The Suliotes article already mentions most of the sources in this list and/or their authors, citing later secondary sources which we do consider to be reliable, so this article seems rather superfluous. But that does not make the listed sources worthless - they are, in fact, precisely the works that originally brought the Suliotes to the attention of the rest of Europe and thus first established their notability, even if we now generally prefer to rely on secondary sources that have compared and evaluated these primary sources from a more critical distance rather than trying to interpret them directly. PWilkinson (talk) 00:34, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
PWilkinson, i agree, its just that the editor who created this article never bothered to add these to the Further Reading section of the Souliotes article. Not once. The creation of this article was done when a whole host of edits based on these sources which are wp:primary were unsuccessful in the body of the main article (see my comments above). This list of primary sources can be added without all the extra side interpretations, otherwise its wp:or of wp:primary through a different route. The case in this instance for a stand alone article does not suffice. My suggestion would be a copy and past via merge of most of the list into the Further Reading section and then a deletion of this article as its a wp:fork. Best.Resnjari (talk) 08:05, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_18th_–_early_19th_century_sources_on_Souli_and_Souliotes&oldid=870196948"