Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dutch Acadie
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 no consensus to delete, default to keep. I suggest discussing a merger or redirection; the article is largely redundant with Jurriaen Aernoutsz. Sandstein (talk) 18:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dutch Acadie[edit]
- Dutch Acadie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
There was no place named "Dutch Acadie" or "Dutch Acadia" and historians do not refer to such a place even retrospectively. Google hits [1] return seven hits, of which the only non-Wikipedia site that actually refers to the term "Dutch Acadia" is a personal website. books.google.com returns zero hits [2]. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 23:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment google books does not hit 0. Take a look.
- http://books.google.com/books?id=w4IBAAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=Dutch+Acadie&ei=W70bSIXWPJ2YtAO15pzrBg
- http://books.google.com/books?id=9sLDM9xujP0C&q=Dutch+Acadie&dq=Dutch+Acadie&ei=W70bSIXWPJ2YtAO15pzrBg&pgis=1
- http://books.google.com/books?id=n71jGQAACAAJ&dq=Dutch+Acadie&ei=W70bSIXWPJ2YtAO15pzrBg
- Comment Those are not correct searches for the term "Dutch Acadie". They are searches for the terms "Dutch" and "Acadie". The two are not the same, as anyone who knows how to use a search engine properly knows. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 01:25, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and possibly rename. The Dutch Wikipedia article is very extensive with many references to this former political entity. That is a very good starting point for this article. I'm finding various terms though, like in the "Acadia was also Dutch" section of this reference.--Oakshade (talk) 02:37, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The fact that the Dutch WP has an article on it is not evidence for anything. As an illustration of the problems of looking at other language WP's articles, the Dutch Wikipedia article on its own empire is seriously inaccurate, giving itself vast colonies in Iran [3] (until Red4tribe changed the map a second ago), and the editors at the Spanish WP have decided to award themselves Portugal's empire [4], though through extensive discussion here at the English WP Talk:Spanish Empire we have decided firmly against that. There appear to be very lax standards at play at the other languages' WPs and they should in no way be viewed as a reason for doing anything here at the English WP. Also, that website is a self-published one, as I have repeatedly pointed out to Red4tribe, such websites are not permissible sources under WP policy.The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 02:50, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Response. Red Hat, you might want to check your facts. Did you actually look at that map in the Dutch Empire article? The green coloring in Iran doesn't refer to Dutch colonies, but operations of the Dutch East India Company, which in fact did have major operations in what is today known as Iran. You have not substantiated your attempt to discredit Dutch Wikipedia as "Dutch aggrandizing". As for your off-topic attack on Spanish Wikipedia for showing a map of the Spanish Empire that included Portugal, Spain did in fact rule Portugal from 1680 to 1740 (see History of Portugal (1578-1777) and Iberian Union). Spain didn't officially recognize Portuguese independence until the Treaty of Lisbon (1668) which ended the bitter Portuguese Restoration War. If you're going to attack heavily researched articles on any Wikipedia site, I would strongly advise doing research of your own before making the attacks as they are only backfiring. --Oakshade (talk) 03:19, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Response. Yes, I did check my facts, actually. I have around fifty books on European colonial empires in my personal library, including C. R. Boxer's The Dutch Seaborne Empire 1600-1800. Perhaps you can provide a map that suggests that that large area of Iran was a "base of operation of" the VOC? Anyway let us not get off topic here. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 03:25, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You're the one who choose to go on this bizarre off-topic attack on foreign language Wikipedias. As far as Dutch East India Company (VOC) operations in Iran, see this from "The Cambridge History of Iran" (this took a 1 second Google search. Surprising your "fifty books" make no mention of this). Just to keep this slightly on-topic, that was only reason why you felt Dutch Wikipedia should be discredited for their article on Dutch Acadia in Dutch Wikipedia. --Oakshade (talk) 03:37, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I see no reason why other Wikipedias should be ignored and forgotten. It is very ignorant to suggest because of one article(map) that all other wikipedias have "lax standards". If you take a look at this http://www.nationaalarchief.nl/AMH/map.aspx?lang=en you can see maps of the VOC in Iran. Anyways, back to Acadia, I don't think a name change is needed but if it has to be to keep the article that will have to be done. There is really no good reason for this article being deleted. (Red4tribe (talk) 03:42, 3 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]
- Response. Yes, I did check my facts, actually. I have around fifty books on European colonial empires in my personal library, including C. R. Boxer's The Dutch Seaborne Empire 1600-1800. Perhaps you can provide a map that suggests that that large area of Iran was a "base of operation of" the VOC? Anyway let us not get off topic here. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 03:25, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Response. Red Hat, you might want to check your facts. Did you actually look at that map in the Dutch Empire article? The green coloring in Iran doesn't refer to Dutch colonies, but operations of the Dutch East India Company, which in fact did have major operations in what is today known as Iran. You have not substantiated your attempt to discredit Dutch Wikipedia as "Dutch aggrandizing". As for your off-topic attack on Spanish Wikipedia for showing a map of the Spanish Empire that included Portugal, Spain did in fact rule Portugal from 1680 to 1740 (see History of Portugal (1578-1777) and Iberian Union). Spain didn't officially recognize Portuguese independence until the Treaty of Lisbon (1668) which ended the bitter Portuguese Restoration War. If you're going to attack heavily researched articles on any Wikipedia site, I would strongly advise doing research of your own before making the attacks as they are only backfiring. --Oakshade (talk) 03:19, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The fact that the Dutch WP has an article on it is not evidence for anything. As an illustration of the problems of looking at other language WP's articles, the Dutch Wikipedia article on its own empire is seriously inaccurate, giving itself vast colonies in Iran [3] (until Red4tribe changed the map a second ago), and the editors at the Spanish WP have decided to award themselves Portugal's empire [4], though through extensive discussion here at the English WP Talk:Spanish Empire we have decided firmly against that. There appear to be very lax standards at play at the other languages' WPs and they should in no way be viewed as a reason for doing anything here at the English WP. Also, that website is a self-published one, as I have repeatedly pointed out to Red4tribe, such websites are not permissible sources under WP policy.The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 02:50, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep & rename (or Merge information into relevant parent article(s)) – Capt. Aernoutsz only captured (and briefly held) two small French forts (Pentagouet and Jemseg) and on the basis of just the first claimed all of Acadia and Nova Scotia for the Netherlands. Since the Dutch never captured more than this tiny piece of Acadia and never introduced Dutch colonists, it’s rather a stretch to speak of a “Dutch Acadia” (which would be the proper English rendering, not “Acadie”); in fact, it is not even the name Aernoutsz gave it when he claimed it. The topic of this article is encyclopedic, but the matter is more appropriately treated as a military adventure/incursion and the title should reflect this. Askari Mark (Talk) 04:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I am happily disposed toward Askari Mark's solution; the only thing that gives me pause is that the article is already substantially identical to Jurriaen Aernoutsz, so expansion of that article would be a better choice. I don't think the name Dutch Acadie is at all appropriate -- at best it could be something like Dutch invasion of Acadia. But still, we're back to having not much more than is in the Captain's article already. --Dhartung | Talk 06:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment the image in the article seems to indicate that it was called Nova Hollandia... 70.51.9.170 (talk) 13:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Dutch Acadie never existed and appears to be a coined phrase. A Dutch ship captured two barely defended French forts and were re-taken a month later. The Netherlands never had any rule over the area. No reliable sources for term "Dutch Acadie" as per Ghits and GoogleBooks cited by The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick. DoubleBlue (Talk) 16:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a minor historical footnote which is already adequately covered in our articles on Acadia and Jurriaen Aernoutsz — it simply isn't a topic that requires a separate article. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 19:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per DoubleBlue. GreenJoe 21:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This article contains content on a notable subject which belongs in an encyclopedia. Renaming of the article and any possible merging are matters for talk and project page discussion, not AfD. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Bearcat. Stifle (talk) 11:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and Redirect, per User talk:DoubleBlue above, this does not seem to have been a significant political entity. While there is some minor coverage on Google books, I'm not certain that a Dutch pamphlet published in 1858 qualifies as a reliable source. A mention in the Acadia article is definitely warranted, but not a whole article to itself. Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC).[reply]
- Delete or Merge into Dutch_colonization_of_the_Americas - The fact remains that the Dutch took two forts from the french, claim the whole area but left unable to defend or establish trading posts. If anything, it was a victory against the french but hardly a take over espeically when you consider the abandonment and the fact that most of the French forces were elsewhere. I do not mean it to be erased but it is simply not true that the claim was valid, nor was it ever held. It could not be considered as having any part of the empire and besides a passing reference in Acadia history or in the history of the Dutch Colonies of American (see link). Again, these references should only be passing. Most of the information is taken either directly from other Wikipedia articles are private websites or a book, that does not claim fact but account. In addition, EVERY reference basically mocks the claim when they mention it, clearly deminstrating it was nothing more then a paper claim with no backing. The example I use is that the Emperor of China claimed to be emperor of everything, but clearly the Chinese empire does not encompose the whole universe because at the time he could hardly support his "claim". With nothing more than that, this was just two battles won, hardly a colony take over. -Kirkoconnell (talk) 19:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep renaming, and rewriting - the lead does not explain what is going on, and some context in terms of more substantial Dutch colonies in N America is needed. But the subject is worth a short article. Johnbod (talk) 13:08, 8 May 2008 (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.