Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Winston Churchill as historian

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. Merging can be discussed on the article's talk page, if necessary. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 00:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Winston Churchill as historian[edit]

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

Original research, no sources and completely POV. Pure opinion piece. Sourcing tags, added in 2007, not acknowledged or responded to. J M Rice (talk) 19:19, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Could use some improvement, but ample sources exist for the topic. Had been meaning to improve it whenever I got the time, based on John Lukacs (2002). Churchill: visionary, statesman, historian. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. pp. 101–129. ISBN 0-300-10302-6., which has a chapter on Churchill as a historian and reviews other writers' critique of Churchill as a historian.John Z (talk) 20:38, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While the article sucks, it is a viable topic and several books have been written on Churchill's historical writings (such as the award-winning In Command of History. Churchill Fighting and Writing the Second World War which covers his Second World War series). Nick-D (talk) 21:15, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep OR, POV, etc., are not reasons for deletion. Churchill as a historian is a notable topic. The article does not suck, it merely reflects a style and tone from an earlier era of Wikipedia, when sourcing requirements and tone concerns were less stringent. Ray^Talk 23:52, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- Ray^Talk 23:56, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yes, OR and POV are reasons for deletion if that's all the article consists of. Of course the article sucks. It [was originated] by one person, who wanted to publish his views on the subect, as an essay, which in itself violates Wikipedia policy. "Personal essays: Although Wikipedia is supposed to compile human knowledge, it is not a vehicle to make personal opinions become part of such knowledge."
For the record, the creator of this article, Adam Carr, was one of the most prolific editors in the early years of Wikipedia, and was widely respected for the quality of his article writing. He has earned a lot more AGF than what you have on offer here.
(Note that I am not putting this forward as an argument for keeping the article, so let's get that straw man off the agenda. I am merely pointing out that this article was never "a vehicle to make personal opinions" known, and you have no right to characterise it as such.) Hesperian 02:09, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Less stringent"??? Polemic has never been acceptable. There is NO sourcing here, and the "tone" is pure POV and filled with weasel words. In any case, a topic's worth as a Wikipedia article is irrelevant to whether the content of the article should be included. If all the content violates Wikipedia policy, then what other recourse than to delete the article? It is Wikipedia policy that candidates for deletion include "Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including...original theories and conclusions...". It's not that it contains some OR or POV — the article is OR, POV and unsourced in its entirety. Deleting these from the article would leave no content.

If you insist on keeping the article because you like the subject, then perhaps a stub could be left as an anchor, which John Z and Nick could build on with their sources, as long as it doesn't result in an inane revert war waged by the originator's bruised ego. J M Rice (talk) 01:57, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: this writer of this comment is the nominator. Ray^Talk 08:20, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As the guideline states, this is not a vote. It is a debate, and I, as nominator, am entitled to participate. Please stick to the merits. J M Rice (talk) 13:03, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if anyone here has actually read Churchill's histories. For someone who has read them (I have), someone else's questioning Churchill's credibility, as the article seeks to do, is controversial indeed, and as such demands proper citations, not just an opinion. To repeat, there has been a sourcing tag on the article since 2007, with no response from the originator of the article or anyone else. As Wikipedia policy states, unsourced material will be deleted. Again, the problem is that the article, from the beginning, has depended in its entirety on unsourced POV and/or OR which, if removed, would leave no content. (I should presume that an article containing little or no valid content is a candidate for deletion.) While the topic of "Winston Churchill as historian" is valid, it should not be used as a vehicle for someone's op-ed piece, which this article obviously is. J M Rice (talk) 13:03, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Entire books have been written which question the credibility of Churchill's histories, so it's hardly 'controversial'. Nick-D (talk) 21:39, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ see next item-- Churchill was not an academic historian, but his position gave him unique access to records. He produced a number of substanial volumes, and this earned him the nobel prize for literature. Surely, that in itself is justification for keeping the article. There can hardly be space within the general bio-article to deal adequately with this subject, so that we need this one. Yes there are more recent historians, and access to further sources will have enabled them to provide new insights into subjects; Yes there may be POV issues. However none of these give occasion for deletion. I have read his Second World War (all of it) and more than once. I read an old biography of the Duke of Berwick recently, and that had frequent citations of his volumes of Marlborough. I do not regard the article as wholly unsourced, as it is clearly about his books, which are a source in themselves. However it does not contain adequate citations: still a very common problem in WP. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:05, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note We also have Winston Churchill as a writer, which is an even less good article than this one. I would suggest Merging the two, but most of the content of the merged article will come from this one. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:12, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:54, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Lord Winston Churchill made history, this is undisputable. The prolific number of publications he penned have tremendous historical value as he was around the table when and where it was made. The mere fact that he wrote in agonizing detail about the stupendous events he was involved with makes him a historians' historian.Jemesouviens32 (talk) 17:05, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note The article as written may not 'Per Se' meet Wikipedia guidelines, that said, this article has its place and should be kept and edited to meet the a propos standards.Jemesouviens32 (talk) 17:09, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It has never been true that 'it's a bad article' is a reason for deletion. It's a reason for improving the article. The subject is undeniably notable and encyclopedic.

I don't see anyone arguing for delete except the nominator, so unless another opinion is expressed soon I would expect a "snowball keep". DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:12, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Is there really a question? Per first three keeps above.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:34, 24 November 2009 (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.