The result was keep. Courcelles 02:15, 16 August 2010 (UTC) reply
Here is the original deletion rationale - I am collapsing it in favour of restatement below (but it's still relevant and should be read before the restatement)
MickMacNee (
talk) 19:40, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
reply
|
---|
The term "The Crucible of Iron Age Shetland" is not a notable place or name. It is an umbrella term that was apparently recently invented to list the three Scottish places of Mousa, Old Scatness and Jarlshof together as an application for inclusion on the new Tentative List of World Heritage sites in the UK. It is not certain yet which of those applications gets to go onto the Tentative List, and being on the Tentative List is no guarantee of ever becoming a World Heritage site - it is merely a pre-requesite for consideration. See List of World Heritage Sites of the United Kingdom#Tentative list for a fuller explanation. As such, any idea that "The Crucible of Iron Age Shetland" is actually a Heritage Site yet is very much speculation, and we already have decent articles on all three sites already. And the term as a name is only mentioned in sources as part of the press coverage of the original announcment of the applications. The current content of this article is simply some content from all three separate pages bunched together under this title. As such, this article is an exercise in pointless duplication/ forking and improper speculation. At best, it can be turned into a usefull redirect to the applicatoins list, or a sort of dab page listing the three sites, but either way, there's no point keeping the current content in the article history, and thus it should be deleted first before that occurs. MickMacNee ( talk) 15:47, 1 August 2010 (UTC) reply |
The restatement is collapsed in here because it's necessarily quite long
MickMacNee (
talk) 19:40, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
reply
|
---|
NOTABILITYThe first relevant guideline is WP:NOTABILITY. It states:
So, to assess if the sources support the claim that the 'crucible of iron age scotland' is notable, I shall review the article's references. I list below the sources in the order they are listed in the article, detailing how they relate to the topic:
So, in summary, only 6 of the 17 references in this article even qualify for consideration as evidence of notability of the topic of 'crucible of iron age scotland'. Of those 6, four simply name or list 'crucible of iron age scotland' as one of the 6 Scottish or 38 national bids, some not even including the term 'crucible' even. Of the 2 remaining (No. 6 and 8.), one gives just a sentence on the crucible bid, and the other manages to include a quote from one person involved in the crucible bid. That's it, that's the entire body of proof so far that 'crucible of iron age scotland' is a notable topic deserving of an article. This is patently nowhere near meeting the relevant wording in WP:N as described above. On inheritance and predictionOn a related matter to notability, it has been suggested that simply being a possible WHS site means that there should be an article on it. However, from the essay Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, see WP:NOTINHERITED. Notability cannot be claimed for something because it is associated with something which is notable - therefore, you cannot claim that just because the 'crucible of iron age scotland' might someday become a WHS, it is not currently notable because of this fact. And it is simply incorrect to say that the crucible is even one step away from becoming a WHS, it is at most two steps, possibly more. First it has to be accepted as a Tentative List applicant, then it has to selected from the list, before it can become a WHS. And this process can take years. CONTENT FORKINGThe second relevant guideline is WP:CONTENTFORKING. It states:
As you can see from the reference list above, 99% of this article is redundant to material that already exsits, namely the articles on the three sites being termed the 'crucible', namely Mousa, Old Scatness and Jarlshof, or is properly treated in other articles such as on the bid process, detailed in List of World Heritage Sites of the United Kingdom#2010 applicants, or on heritage sites in Scotland. There is nothing here that sustains the topic of 'crucible of iron age scotland' in any way that justifies such pointless redundancy, and per policy, is to be avoided. Cut down to just novel and non-redundant material, and ignoring the fact it is already implicit in the crucible entry in the 2010 applicant list in the previous article, this article simply states:
That's it. This is not the basis of a separate article. On summary styleOn a matter related to forking, it is suggested that this article is an acceptable spinout because it is a summary style spinout fork. This is false, because of the fact that this material does not have a parent article from which it has been spun out of. It contains summary style sections of background material, namely on the three sites and the application process, but this does not make it a spinout article. Its inclusion only makes it more evident that this article is redundant to pre-existing articles. MickMacNee ( talk) 19:40, 5 August 2010 (UTC) reply |
Keep
Extended discussion collapsed for ease of navigation
MickMacNee (
talk) 19:40, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
reply
|
---|
Perhaps I could summarise.
|
Extended discussion collapsed for ease of navigation
MickMacNee (
talk) 19:40, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
reply
|
---|
|
Extended discussion collapsed for ease of navigation
MickMacNee (
talk) 19:40, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
reply
|
---|
I came across this today. - "The UNESCO World Heritage List is possibly the best known list, of anything, anywhere on Earth". Perhaps the source - heritage-key.com/blogs" - is less impressive than the statement, but I couldn't resist posting it here. The existence of the LAWHF - hitherto unknown to me, must surely be of interest tho', give that it is a structure with a specific remit that includes supporting communities (i.e. local authorities I imagine) with potential World Heritage Sites within their areas. Ben Mac Dui 18:40, 3 August 2010 (UTC) reply
|