Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Historical figure

: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 Snow Keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:09, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

=[[Historical figure]]=

:{{la|Historical figure}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Historical_figure Stats])

:({{Find sources|Historical figure}})

This article was proposed for deletion back in 2007-07-05T14:06:51 and a decision was made to change it to a link to Wiktionary. Wiktionary has had the article for historical figure deleted three times and there is currently no article there. The page effectively goes to a Wiktionary red link. Deleting the article would solve the problem. SchreiberBike (talk) 04:27, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

  • Keep We're not here to sort out Wiktionary's problems. The topic is notable and I have made a start on fleshing it out. The rest is a matter of ordinary editing, not deletion, per WP:PRESERVE. Warden (talk) 08:54, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:10, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

  • Delete or Rewrite What happens in Wiktionary is an issue independent from Wikipedia. However, there is a conceptual problem about what a 'historical figure' is. To me it is a person who was involved in historical events, not a person involved in historical events who shows up in a fictional work. I doubt these disagreements can be resolved. Maybe the article can be written, so all sides have a say in what a historical figure is to them. If not, delete this article. This subject is kind of like having an article titled 'Obama should be re-elected' or 'Romney should be elected'. Sometimes there are opinions that cannot be reconciled.Bill Pollard (talk) 14:01, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete -- The whole concept is too vague for a satisfacotry article to be possible, which is probably why there is nothing now in Wiktionary. We should follow their example and get rid of it. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:32, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete. The sources present for the article focus on individual historical figures, or on groups of certain figures. Reliable sources determining precisely what a "historical figure" is, analyzing the subject, and focusing primarily on it are lacked. dci | TALK 17:08, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep per improvements by the Colonel. A massively widely used concept, which any good encyclopedia should cover. Theres even moby apps about historical figures. And hundreds of thousands of hits for "historical figure" in google books alone. Sadly the concept does seem to be used much more often than its directly explained ,so its not easy to find sources that address it in detail. They do seem to exist though (e.g. Sylvie Richards THE HISTORICAL FIGURE AS PALIMPSEST) but havent been able to find a good one online from a quick search. FeydHuxtable (talk) 07:01, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete as an unencyclopaedic definition. The references are to uses of the term, not about the term, and so do not support the article as is, unless someone can find the definition [http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/ here] or [http://www.history.com/news/history-lists/7-historical-figures-famous-for-something-they-never-did here]. Whether it's suitable for wiktionary is irrelevant, it's not suitable for here.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 01:21, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Update: I think I'm neutral now. - Sources are not discussing the concept of historical figures, but rather simply using or giving examples of those who fall under it. The term itself is really just the intersection of its two component words.--Yaksar (let's chat) 04:09, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

:* No, the topic is discussed in detail by sources such as [http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=3foF0YLfoRwC this book] which has chapters such as The Historical Figure in the Seventeenth Century. WP:SIGCOV is satisfied and so there is no policy-based reason to delete. Warden (talk) 12:56, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

  • Keep Clearly notable, problem is might be too notable to easily write an article about it. I can see a sociological approach to it and the role of them in history which is pretty important I think.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:25, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep, though I wouldn't like to be the one charged with writing the article. It's a difficult concept to distill properly, but one which I think is critical to keep around. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 17:13, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep. A quick search shows a lot has been written on the subject around the questions of "How can we tell they existed? How do we know the truth about them? How are such people important?" and "How freely may an artist deviate from the facts about a historical figure". I have added some content. I suspect there are many other aspects and am sure there is much more to say. It could also be better organized. But this is enough to establish that the subject is entirely notable. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:55, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep, as "historical figure" is mentioned [http://www.britannica.com/search?query=historical+figure] in the Encyclopædia Britannica.--andreasegde (talk) 12:10, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 00:29, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

  • Keep The concept is clearly notable and deserves an article. There is certainly room for improvment in the article, but no reason to delete it. BigJim707 (talk) 02:48, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep WP needs more conceptual articles. The fact that people disagree on who should be included in the term is a good reason for covering it. Much more than a dictionary definition is needed. --AJHingston (talk) 08:52, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep - Not my favorite WP article, but pretty clearly an encyclopedic concept. If anyone wants to work on this further, I suggest coverage of the "Great Man Theory of History." Carrite (talk) 15:35, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
  • We already have an article on Great Man theory; this a more general treatment, and needed because not all historians (or writers) can be ascribed to that school. Tijfo098 (talk) 18:58, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep. The page has been turned into a legitimate article. Any problems with it can now be dealt with through normal editing. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:58, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep There wasn't any article at all when this was nominated, just a message to see the wikitionary definition instead. The article has now been created and continuously improved since the nomination. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Historical_figure&diff=518887549&oldid=517322260] This is clearly an encyclopedic topic, as sources clearly demonstrate. Dream Focus 22:45, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep - As the original proposer for deletion, I've changed my mind. This has changed from a useless redirect into a legitimate article about a subject that is arguably encyclopedic. Thanks for the work in improving it. SchreiberBike (talk) 23:34, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep. I don't see significant problems with this article. Clearly secondary sources which discuss the (abstract if you like) concept of "historical figure" are to be used instead of picking sources from the ocean of sources which discuss particular figures. Such sources clearly exist, even if they are usually focused on a certain time period or school. But the current article seems to manage to use such sources reasonably well, so I don't see WP:SYNT concerns. This appears an above-par broad concept article. Tijfo098 (talk) 18:56, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. This article is about a huge concept. I don't think that a page for it on Wiktionary would explain enough about the concept. Hadger 20:36, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep A classic case of the deletion process actually saving an article. AutomaticStrikeout 20:57, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable subject with reliable sources. Insomesia (talk) 10:23, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Changed my vote to keep. I had said I thought this article should be deleted or rewritten. I am pleased that it could be rewritten successfully. Bill Pollard (talk) 20:58, 22 October 2012 (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.