Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Imperial election of 1376

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:58, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Imperial election of 1376[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There are several of these kinds of pages that are formed as a series. They were all created by User:Dallyripple who split them off from the main article, Imperial election. All of these articles have the section Election of X (year), followed by a the subsections Electors and Elected. However, this series of articles does not seem to meet the WP:N criterion. Firstly, the topics of this article series are too trivial (and don't seem to have WP:RS due to that). This information has been contained in the Imperial election article ever since it was created by User:RandomCritic so it may also be WP:OR. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 20:55, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the rest of the articles in the series. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 21:02, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 21:15, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 22:43, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree with the assertion that any election of a Holy Roman Emperor is a trivial or non-notable event. Dallyripple (talk) 23:19, 21 November 2017 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Dallyripple (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 00:39, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but Trout Dailyripple for creating these pages without any references. The topics are likely notable, and the wikilinks are reference enough to keep the pages until they can be improved. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:57, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the name "Imperial election" is perfectly clear to me, but only because I've played Europa Universalis IV too much. I would support a rename proposal to include some version of "Holy Roman Empire" in the article titles. power~enwiki (π, ν)

Please withdraw this frivolous nomination TonyBallioni (talk) 06:04, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect back to Imperial election, from where they were all removed. DrKay (talk) 07:12, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Icewhiz that new structure is better. It's probably should be linked to Imperial election, but independent article for each election allows more information to be added. All these elections in one article make it unreadable. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 14:02, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I stand by my pithy !vote above: this might be the worst AfD nomination I have ever seen on Wikipedia, so I don't think it deserves more comment on the substance that that. Just responding to DrKay: I think this format is better. Its what we follow for papal conclaves, and the overwhelming majority of them almost as horrible as these articles. Its a good format because it allows others to improve them more easily than if they were in a larger article (its how I started improving the conclave series). TonyBallioni (talk) 14:55, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyBallioni I totally agree here. Is there another forum that people might use if they have problems with a page? It seems like people are impatient to use a talk page on the topic and so think the only option to get anyone talking about a page is to submit things for deletion. Is there any accountability process for users who abuse this process?Egaoblai (talk) 21:49, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. AfD is the wrong forum - this is really a question of whether to merge back into Imperial election from where these were all removed (cut and paste). I think the new organization is better - citations should be improved in the sub-articles as well as in Imperial election. I think Dailyripple should've posted on the parent article's talk-page prior to branching all of these off, and should've added references.Icewhiz (talk) 07:35, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, discuss on the talk page. Both the previous structure (all in one page) and the current structure (lots of pages) are possible models for the organisation of this content. At the very least, the page titles need to exist as redirects (perfectly valid link targets). The idea that there could be a problem with WP:N or WP:RS is fairly laughable. —Kusma (t·c) 10:28, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep all Election of a Holy Roman emperor can't be not notable event. Articles will need improvement and references, but no doubt it's a notable event in history. For a while they all can be tagged as stub. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 13:51, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, similarly notable events as papal elections. --Norden1990 (talk) 08:23, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The election of the Holy Roman Emperor was a major event in Europe and often influenced other events. The 1519 election for example had major influence on relations between European states including the power struggles between Charles V and France. It also had an impact on the Reformation as Charles V's handling of Luther was shaped by the fact he did not want to alienate the Elector of Saxony. However, I agree the articles as they stand need work. Dunarc (talk) 19:13, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agree with all above. The idea that the election of a Holy Roman Emperor could somehow be non-notable is ludicrous. These were major, world-altering events. Ejgreen77 (talk) 23:04, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as a series of notable, referenced events. The pages do need improvement, and ideally wouldn't be vaguely named "Imperial election" but rather something closer to what they were. "Holy Roman Emperor election"? -- Ajraddatz (talk) 08:06, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above clearly notable events .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:13, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- These are all substantive articles. Some of the elections had foregone conclusions, but they were nevertheless important events. At CFD, there has been a question over the limited amount of content in earlier periods. Here is some of that content. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:53, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
KAP03, why are you adding more articles to this AfD that has no chance of closing as delete? You should withdraw this rather than adding more articles. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:10, 26 November 2017 (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.