Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Historic recurrence

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:55, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Historic recurrence

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

Article about a synthetic concept. A synthetic concept may seem notable because the author can cobble together and cite many related works, however the entire concept itself is synthesis. Gigs (talk) 00:53, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 07:43, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't think that this article can be called "synthesis" with a link to original research, because reference is made to the theories of many notable thinkers. I would like a better description of the work of G.W. Trompf, because, based on the title of Trompf's book, it seems to be perhaps the strongest reference. It's a bit sketchy now - how about publisher, ISBN and so on, plus a more detailed summary of Trompf's thinking? Cullen328 (talk) 07:58, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- G.W. Trompf, The Idea of Historical Recurrence in Western Thought, from Antiquity to the Reformation, Berkeley, University of California Press, 1979, ISBN 0-520-03479-1, is available for review online as a Google Books result. Nihil novi (talk) 09:13, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have added, to the article, G.W. Trompf's summary of major views and paradigms of historic recurrence. Thank you for the suggestion. Nihil novi (talk) 11:27, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Assembling the theories of many notable thinkers to support a concept that none of them specifically wrote about is indeed what synthesis is all about. Gigs (talk) 14:30, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - If you read the Trompf quotation, you will find that all the arguments made in "Historic recurrence" are there. The other sources corroborate him. Nihil novi (talk) 15:27, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - But it's only a problem if a Wikipedia editor does it, not if Garry W. Trompf, erstwhile professor of History at the University of Papua New Guinea, does it.
      And if you don't like a (now) emeritus professor of the History of Ideas at the University of Sydney, I can give you a Regius Professor of Moral Philosophy at the University of Aberdeen linking all of these things together, too, bringing Oswald Spengler and Arnold J. Toynbee — two people notable by their absence from this article — to the table as well. Pitirim Aleksandrovich Sorokin had a little something to say on the matter of recurrence, too, and he's not yet mentioned either. Uncle G (talk) 17:09, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Graham, Gordon (1997). "Recurrence". The shape of the past. Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780192892553.
      - Toynbee, Arnold J. (1948). "Does History Repeat Itself?". Civilization on Trial. New York: Oxford University Press.
      - Sorokin, Pitirim Aleksandrovich (1957). Social and cultural dynamics: a study of change in major systems of art, truth, ethics, law, and social relationships. Boston: Porter Sargent Publishing. (also available reprinted 1985 by Transaction publishers)
        These look like more suitable sources. Maybe the article can be saved after all. Gigs (talk) 18:09, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Most of the footnotes aren't really useful. Many of the citations seem contrived. It brings up dubious legendary ideas like Montezuma submitting before Cortez because he thought he was a God. I believe this is just one person's take on the historiography of mankind, sort of a new age world-spirit type analysis. Toynbee attempted to explore the various ways that civilizations adapted and changed, and it was mostly pseudoscientific to his own admission. Spengler took an organic evolutionary view of history. I don't believe either of them asserted anything that has to do with this article. Their ideas are referenced and encyclopedic in content, this one is just pop-history. I say delete.24.250.242.46 (talk) 19:00, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        The IP editor's argument seems to be that the the article should be deleted because he or she doesn't like the article, and that's a pretty weak argument. This editor also seems to believe that Wikipedia functions like the editorial board of an academic journal, and that approving an article means that we somehow endorse the "truth" or academic validity of the topic described in the article. That's not so. Wikipedia has plenty of room for articles about "pseudoscience" and "pop-history", as long as such topics are shown to be notable by discussion in independent, reliable sources, and the articles are written from the neutral point of view and referenced properly. If the editor finds that some of the footnotes "aren't really useful", then remove those footnotes and explain why on the talk page. If the citations seem "contrived" then challenge them on the talk page and either remove them or propose others. If the IP editor has more information about what Toynbee and Spengler thought about this topic, then add that information and reference it. Cullen328 (talk) 00:39, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, no, that's not what they said at all. They went through the citations and explained why they didn't think they were appropriate for this article and how they weren't being treated in an encyclopedic manner. Dismissing that as an "I didn't like it" vote is bordering on incivility at best, and at worst is intellectual dishonesty. The article still has very serious issues, even if the concept can be shown to be notable. Stubbing it way down and rewriting it from more solid sources like Uncle G has provided would be the best thing to do if this is kept. Gigs (talk) 00:47, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        
        I didn't see an explanation from the IP editor as to why the citations were "contrived" or a listing of specifically which ones the IP editor objects to. I didn't see any specific references to Wikipedia policy or guidelines to back the recommendation to "Delete". As for Montezuma thinking Cortez was a god, I think that the factual basis of Cortez's claim is less important than the impact that the Cortez story has had on how "western civilization" views its own history over the past 500 years, at least with regards to this particular case. The same thing goes for similar stories about Polynesia and New Guinea. I think that it is indisputable that the ideas described in this article have had an impact on modern consciousness, and that the topic itself is established by the sources as notable. The purpose of this discussion is to debate whether the article should be kept or deleted. We make those decisions based on established policy regarding notability, sources and so on. A recommendation to "Keep" is not an endorsement of the theory described in the article, or a statement that the article in its current state is an excellent one. Personally, I happen to think the theory is hogwash, but I also happen to believe that Wikipedia should have an article on it, and that the current article is a halfway decent start. Sure, it needs better references and a more neutral description incorporating critical viewpoints. I base my AfD recommendations on established policy and guidelines. I didn't see the IP editor refer to any of them. If this be "incivility" and "intellectual dishonesty", then please elaborate, Gigs, so that I may learn and improve my thinking. I have a thick skin. Cullen328 (talk) 01:53, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you all for addressing the article. I was really uncomfortable with it being edited by one person and containing a lot of what seemed to me questionable ideas. I checked the talk page and it seemed like two years ago a general agreement was reached over it being worthy of deletion. I could find no record of it being addressed in this manner, but tried to bring attention to the article through non-vandalism edits. This has been enlightening to watch and I am still learning the workings of wikipedia. I apologize if I offended anyone.24.250.242.46 (talk) 02:07, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The material currently in the article shows the notability . The Trompf book and the chapter in

Toynbee's book are sufficient sources to show that. The concept may be regarded by some as over-systemzation, but that is not our concern. The concept exists and is notable. Some of the material is a little over-detailed, and is written a little too much in the form of an essay with possibly a little too much synthesis, but that can be dealt with easily enough. I started by removing the long footnote example from Twain about the celebrated frog. DGG ( talk ) 00:00, 7 December 2010 (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.