Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Statute of Catalonia of 1919

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The result was speedy keep, nomination withdrawn, no other recommendation to delete. Non-admin closure — Frankie (talk) 15:53, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statute of Catalonia of 1919[edit]

There have been no improvements of sources given in over 2 years. I have no idea if anything about this article is fact or fantasy but two plus years seems enough time to fix this. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:37, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After reading several comments I have re-evaluated my AFD. Perhaps I should have used {{notability}}, {{original research}}, {{unencyclopedic}}.... except on BLP. I formally withdraw this AFD nomination. Please close. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:39, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is one of a number of nominations for AFD of articles about Catalan history where the same nominator is saying that he or she has no idea whether it is fact or fantasy. A quick glance at Google suggests that the topic is notable and the facts are broadly as given elsewhere. It really requires an editor with a good knowledge of Catalonian history and preferably Catalan to source and check this, but a blanket reference to AFD is not the way to fix it. I'm reluctant to quote WP:BEFORE, but I would encourage the nominator to withdraw these nominations and adopt a more discriminatory approach. --AJHingston (talk) 10:46, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment After 2 years tell me who is interested in fixing this? It's been tagged since Dec. 2009. Right now some kid is doing a book report on this and it could be pure fantasy for all I know. If it's so easy to check and source why hasn't someone done it in over 2 years of tagging? No refs. I have seen so many new articles deleted instantly by those who handle new page patrols. Those wiki assistants don't check any of those articles at google... they look at it and say this is not ready for prime time and delete it or put it in the originator's sandbox instantly. At least that's what I've seen happen dozens and dozens of times. Now it's not like this had a tag for only a month or two for zero references. It was 27 months of unknown quality where those who care ignored it. Shall we tag it and wait another 27 months? I'm not sure where the cutoff should be but 2+ years seemed pretty fair to me. So sure, if wiki administrators want me to pull the afd's I'll do so of course. A bot lead me here to check things out and I expected some of these articles would need help in a few sources or language, I've done it many many times. But never have I see an entire genre of the same poor quality completely unsourced pages, tagged as poor sometimes years and years ago, and ignored. Some were BLPs with zip references. It's no wonder wiki is backlogged. If I'm in the minority here and everyone polled says keep this as is, then no harm done. There were a dozen more I could have nominated but stopped at this bunch to make sure no one complained about the reasoning. So my question to AJ would be if new page patrols delete this quality article quickly, why after 2 years does it seem that these particular articles are allowed special treatment? Fyunck(click) (talk) 11:22, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There are rather a lot of articles in WP (actually many millions) which do not quote sources, fail to cite those sources to the appropriate standard, use sources that do not meet properly rigorous standards of reliability, or which are incorrect because the source is wrong or out of date. AFD is a good means of dealing with articles where there is good reason to doubt the essential truth of the article, perhaps where it seems to be made up or conflicts with available sources. But our starting point when we meet inadequately sourced articles should really be to see if we can improve them, and in many cases that will be beyond us because it will be apparent that those sources are not readily available on the web or we lack knowledge as to the most approriate RS. But just bringing every inadequate article to AFD is not helpful to others, and just overloads the system. --AJHingston (talk) 12:02, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If it's so easy to check and source why hasn't someone done it in over 2 years of tagging? — Why didn't you do it when you came across the article? Those wiki assistants don't check any of those articles at google. — On the contrary, they probably did, given how easy it is to turn up history books and articles with these things in, such as Molas 1983.
  It's you that didn't check anything. You put zero effort in, and are yourself part of the problem. Worse than the editors who did nothing, you are actively trying to make Wikipedia worse rather than better, by trying to get rid of what has been done thus far, rather than approaching Wikipedia with the mindset of "I'm claiming to be an encyclopaedia writer. So how can I write to make this better?". If you see an article without sources, try to find some. Writing the encyclopaedia is not Somebody Else's Problem.
  - Molas, I. (1983). "El Projecte d'Estatut d'Autonomia de Catalunya del 1919". In Casassas, Jordi; Castellanos i Francesc Roca, Jordi (eds.). Intellectuals, tecnics i politics (1901–1936). Recerques. Vol. 14. Barcelona: Curial. pp. 69–79. ISBN 9788472562141.
- Uncle G (talk) 14:29, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article needs work (sources) not deletion. North8000 (talk) 12:44, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on the numerous Catalonia AFD's My gut feel is that they could all meet wp:notability individually, have content which should be retained, and that they would be best consolidated into to a new article, possibly Political history of Catalonia. Between being topics that are somewhat obscure in the English speaking world, and that sources are more likely to be in Spanish explains why these articles lack editors and are hard to work on. (I.E. not due to unsuitability of the topic.) I have also posted the following at the Catalonia article:
- There are about 12 Catalonia articles up for deletion (todays AFD's). Most are on obscure political historical topics, have no editors, and no sources, but good content. One suggestion would be to create a "Political History of Catalonia" article and put all of those orphans into it and bring them out of obscurity so that they can get a bit of attention. Or else give the individual article some attention.
Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:59, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, lack of sources is not grounds for deletion. Lack of notability might be, but in the case of this article notability can be established by a few seconds of google searching. This mass tagging of Catalan prods/afds is not constructive, could potentially constitute a case of WP:POINT. --Soman (talk) 15:15, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Soman or merge per North8000 -- though perhaps this should be merged into History of Catalonia rather than starting a "political history" page. Whether it deserves to stay a separate article depends on how notable/impactful this law really was, something we won't know until we get more sources and an editor who knows this material. Today's AFDs might make a good featured collaboration for WP:Spain or WP:Catalan-Speaking Countries. _``` t o l l _` b o o t h _` w i l l i e _`` $1.25 PLEASE _``` 20:49, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the same thing regarding the title. The reasons I went with political history was that it is a part of Spain. So I was thinking maybe the history shoud lcover only the areas where it is distinct from Spain, which I was thinking was political. Also the content of the 12 nominated articles is all political / governance related. But I don't really know the topic, I was just doing my best. I'd defer to anybody who knows this better. North8000 (talk) 17:27, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. BlueBirdo (talk) 16:50, 4 March 2012 (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.