Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dacianos

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 merge to Antiziganism. Sandstein 07:02, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dacianos[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)

NN "caste," fails the GNG. Only coverage found (examining the sources in the article included) are casual mentions and namedrops; no significant coverage in reliable sources found. Notability tagged for over a decade. Deprodded without a rationale. Ravenswing 22:38, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge It's interesting to puzzle through the history of this, especially when one finds that Hugo's L'Homme Qui Rit anticipated The Joker. Key sources seem to be Kaiser's The Comprachicos and Garcia's La desordenada codicia de los bienes agenos y la oposicion y coniuncion de los grandes luminares de la tierra. The worst case would be merger to another page such as Comprachicos or Romani_people#Romani_subgroups per WP:ATD-M and WP:PRESERVE. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:13, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'd reject either merge option. In the case of Comprachicos, I don't see any connection between the two other than both being somewhat generic groups of alleged child-stealers that Hugo linked in a fictional work. In the case of Romani subgroups, this isn't a real Rom clan -- it's an outright and vicious ethnic slur, somewhat akin to merging "Christ-killers" in with an article/section about Jewish ethnic subgroups. That being said, it remains the case that the subject doesn't have coverage beyond casual mentions and namedrops, and requires deletion per WP:DON'T PRESERVE. Ravenswing 00:40, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Comprachicos article is probably best as a merge target as there are plenty of sources which associate the names and it says that it's about "several groups". My !vote stands. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:13, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:53, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:53, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:53, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Antiziganism. It's fun and interesting to try to track this down as authentic folklore prior to Victor Hugo. Kaiser's paper demonstrated that Hugo's named sources for his information on Comprachicos, "Dr. Conquest" and the monk "Avonmore" and "Dr. Chicklaukus", were all fabricated. More than that Hugo playfully dared other scholars to prove him wrong. I don't see responsible sources here and I believe it's unverifiable even as folklore. But @Ravenswing:'s point is far more important: this article DOES blame systematic kidnapping, child torture and mutilation, on the Roma, without a scrap of factual evidence, and without any editorial distance from the accusation. The best place in wikipedia for this content is among other ethnic slurs against the Roma, which is Antiziganism. --Lockley (talk) 22:54, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can buy that, and good work on the Hugo research; I figured that "Dacianos" was fictional, but didn't look into Comprachicos that deeply. Ravenswing 01:43, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Antiziganism which is where such hateful stuff belongs. Bear in mind such feelings are still very current in France.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:35, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as this is not an article on BLP, so the reference which are there are sufficient enough. Sv72 (talk) 01:10, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Antiziganism. I was going to close and merge it, but I wanted to show clear consensus that this stub does not appear to meet WP:GNG on its own as there must be more than simply passing references. Just having references doesn't reach the bar. Ifnord (talk) 15:25, 5 August 2020 (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.