Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Change and continuity

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The result was speedy keep (nominator withdrawn). (non-admin closure) EpicPupper (talk) 04:41, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Change and continuity[edit]

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

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

Sources seem out-of-context, the article is a mess, jumping around multiple topics with no apparent logical line. EpicPupper 04:50, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. EpicPupper 04:50, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - based on the article it is not clear this so-called dichotomy is really 'a thing' in the fields. Wikipedia shouldn't extrapolate such a general principle from individual instances where it could be said to occur, so for retention I would want to see this so-called 'change versus continuity dichotomy' itself being a topic of scholarly discussion in the literature of the respective fields. Agricolae (talk) 14:40, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as apparent synthesis. I can't seem to find any sources that actually discuss this concept in detail. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 16:45, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Struck following the linking of better sources by Extraordinary Writ below. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 09:50, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- This is a poor stub, but not so bad that it needs TNT. This is a question of historiography, into which editors without special knowledge do better not to interfere. It needs tagging for improvement, not deleting. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:00, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm satisfied that this is a sufficiently major scholarly paradigm to justify inclusion. Google Scholar and Google Books are awash in examinations of this topic; some examples are this, this, and pgs. 3–6 of this. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:24, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Extraordinary Writ's find of sources.PrisonerB (talk) 10:13, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:59, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, unquestionably valid concept. Hyperbolick (talk) 08:40, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Normal concept, article is just confusingly written. 15 (talk) 19:55, 30 April 2021 (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.