Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Contemporaneous corroboration

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. Cirt (talk) 06:05, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Contemporaneous corroboration (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

The opening paragraph makes it sound like the article will discuss how historians have greater confidence in a conclusion supported by multiple contemporary sources. This follows logically from historians' interest in contemporary sources and in mutually corroborating sources, and doesn't deserve an article to itself (historical method seems adequate here).

In fact, the rest of the article is about the value of studying historical events without considering known "conclusions" – I can't tell whether it's using this word to mean "judgements by other historians" or merely "subsequent events" – and how that approach supposedly underpins the use of present-tense narrative in television documentaries. This seems to be original research – at least, the article doesn't cite any sources, and a search of Google Books doesn't find any instances of the phrase "contemporaneous corroboration" being used with such a meaning. EALacey (talk) 22:09, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, obviously It's not a term-of-art: that would probably be "contemporary sources". Mangoe (talk) 14:04, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:04, 31 December 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.