Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Historic recurrence (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. I'll also note that "deletion and content transfer" is not often done due to legal attribution issues. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:01, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

=[[:Historic recurrence ]]=

AfDs for this article:

{{Special:Prefixindex/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Historic recurrence}}

:{{la|Historic recurrence}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Historic_recurrence_(2nd_nomination) Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|HistoricReccurence}})

Multiple issues; committed changes from first AfD request unresolved and I see no way to view this article in a way that could be improved in the future. Recommend deletion and content transfer to other, more notable/well sourced topics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ClaudeDavid (talk • contribs) 11:29, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 May 20. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:15, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:58, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Keep -- Yes, it has issues; it is not a good article, but suggesting deletion is mere destruction. The complaint of the lack of in-line citations is overstated as there are a lot. "Those who do not learn from history are condemned to repeat it": probably not quite an accurate quote, but certainly relevant. This is a topic in historiography that would need an expert on the topic to turn it into a good article, but what we have is better than nothing, which is what nom proposed. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:11, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Keep AfD is not cleanup. The articles topic is notable, just needs some work. The previous AfD was closed as 'keep' and I don't see any unresolved issues making deletion needed. The article could certainly be cleaned up. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:21, 20 May 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.