Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diplomacy in the American Revolutionary War

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 Nomination withdrawn; No, this is a pointless waste of time. I was very sick and tired and misinterpreted policy. This article has no reason to be deleted. (non-admin closure) 💵Money💵emoji💵^💸 02:46, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Diplomacy in the American Revolutionary War

[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)

Seeing the title, you may think "What? that sounds like a fine article", but this article is severely flawed. It's a redundant fork that serves as more of a random list of "diplomacy" during the Revolutionary war. It's also copied other articles verbatim 1 2, and was created by a serial copyvio inserter. 💵Money💵emoji💵^💸 20:51, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:26, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:26, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:26, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:27, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:27, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:27, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:27, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:28, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:28, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:28, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:29, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What is it a redundant fork of? Simonm223 (talk) 21:40, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The page has existed for about 10 years and the topic is quite notable. Entire books are written about this and they seem to be cited in the article. Copying within Wikipedia is not a major issue because our content is intended to be re-used and the first version does make a stab at attributing the other pages that it was based on. I've run Earwig to check for copyvios and it doesn't seem to find anything much -- just a big block of text quoted from a historical letter. If there are residual issues, these would be best addressed by cleaning up the current text rather than by starting again. Andrew D. (talk) 23:01, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative Keep I'm not going to delete a notable and reliably sourced article under the grounds that it's a redundant fork when I don't know what article it's supposed to have been forked off of; absent that information I'm !voting keep. Should that be provided, I may reconsider. Simonm223 (talk) 12:25, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep CLearly meets notability standards, and I do not think it is a flaw. Sheldybett (talk) 23:53, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is extensively sourced, and although in a "bullet point" format, consolidates numerous activities during the American Revolution into one very useful article. RobDuch (talk·contribs) 06:22, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per WP:GNG. Good sourcing.BabbaQ (talk) 08:22, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- This serves to act as a parent article to a significant number of "main" articles. It may well be able to benefit from being improved, but that is no reason for deletion. It is common in WP to have a hierarchy of articles, where one provides a summary and another more detail. This AFD nomination (unless there is a similar article at the same level) is just plain destructive. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:35, 23 June 2019 (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.