Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muscovite manorialism

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 delete‎. ✗plicit 23:57, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Muscovite manorialism

[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)

WP:TNT. WP:OR, Template:Essay-like, has had Template:Inline citations issues for 18 years ever since it was created in 2005. Superficial improvements since have barely been able to fix these issues. I was looking for ways of fixing them, including splitting it into 2 articles for before and after 1240, but fundamentally, this article is just not about what its title says. In an article about manorialism, one would expect information about, you know, agriculture, along the lines of

fortified manor house(s) in which the lord of the manor and his dependents lived and administered a rural estate, and a population of labourers who worked the surrounding land to support themselves and the lord. There are small hints of that until halfway the second section, when the word 'manorialism' disappears from the text, the topic switches to military history, and we get an opinion-laden evidence-lacking argument about why Muscovy was "strong" and Kievan Rus' was "weak" (tantamount to violating WP:NPOV). Ironically, the "Muscovite" part is not about manorialism, and the "manorialism" part is not about Muscovy. It's just not worth trying to fix this mess, more than 75% will have to be deleted and the rest thoroughly vetted. Therefore, I think WP:TNT is best. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 19:40, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Creator User:CERC only ever made 3 edits on English Wikipedia, all of them in July 2005, and then disappeared. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 19:58, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Belarus, and Ukraine. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:07, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete regardless of title (archaic) or notability (its a notable subject), this needs TNT. // Timothy :: talk 20:36, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: General references (i.e. no inline citations) were perfectly valid for non-BLPs back in 2005, and it was only relatively recently that consensus has changed to favoring inline citations. Curbon7 (talk) 21:18, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That was true in 2005, but the inline citations template was created in 12 October 2006 (15 months after this article was created), and has been there since 2011, which is for 12 years of its 18-year existence, i.e. 2/3rds of its existence. I really wouldn't call that "recent" anymore. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:25, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Its also the content, none of it can be salvaged. Most of it is off topic and it is riddled with misleading overgeneralizations. // Timothy :: talk 22:00, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My thoughts exactly. As you said, it's a notable subject and I looked seriously at ways to fix it, but it just wasn't worth the trouble. We better start over. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:04, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:13, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I agree that this essay makes an unsatisfactory article, but the solution in such cases is usually to redirect or merge. I would have thought there ought to be an article such as Origins of serfdom in Russia. The lack of in-line citations is not normally a ground for deletion (except BLP). Peterkingiron (talk) 17:08, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:32, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'd delete, this is too far gone to be kept. It's an essay from the early days of wiki. Oaktree b (talk) 15:15, 1 May 2023 (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.