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.
It's not a "mention in one book" but significant coverage in an encyclopedia in addition to the book cited in the article quite a few hours before you commented here.
Phil Bridger (
talk)
16:11, 1 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete unless further sourcing can be provided. A cursory google search reveals a great deal of interest from American activists on Twitter and virtually nothing in anything resembling a
WP:RS. Given that the Herero genocide has received quite a bit of scholarly attention, this is pretty surprising. —Brigade Piron (
talk)
16:08, 1 October 2020 (UTC)reply
And what makes you think that a cursory Google search is in any way relevant, particlarly for an article about a subject that has received quite a bit of scholarly attention? Look in books and academic articles for
WP:RS. They are very rarely found by a web search. If you look in the place where Twitter posts and the like predominate then that is what you will find.
Phil Bridger (
talk)
16:17, 1 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Merge with redirect to
Herero and Namaqua genocide - If all we have right now is the one source, which says she is known for her participation in that event, and the result is it's a one-sentence stub, the reader will be better served reading about her in the article about the genocide. If more sources are found, the redirect can (and should) be expanded to a stub. I don't doubt that there are more sources out there, but my thought on
WP:PAGEDECIDE is it's better as a redirect until we have more material to present.
Lev!vich21:01, 1 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep - I am finding many sources when searching academic journals; I've added a few to the article. Perhaps a WP:BEFORE may not have been completed? Subject of the article is notable, however the article can be improved (which is not a reason for deletion). Meets GNG.
Netherzone (
talk)
21:35, 1 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Bundy's Let the Women Keep Silent in the Churches almost seems to have copied this page. I can't read the relevant part of the The Cultural Unity of Negro Africa, please advise what it says. The UN report only states "Kaipkire of the Herero led her people in battles against European slave traders." These are passing mentions giving the same limited information, not SIGCOV.
Mztourist (
talk)
05:18, 2 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment Just because a writer slaps to word "encyclopedia" on their book does not make it automatically a more forceful source than anything else we have.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
19:26, 2 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Johnpacklambert I know you like to be direct, but with all due respect, it is not necessary to make your point by denigrating the book and its author by claiming that the word "encylopedia" was cavalierly "slapped on". The University of Michigan Press (the original publisher, now in multiple editions) vets their books. The reason some editors mentioned it is that it counts towards
WP:ANYBIO.
Netherzone (
talk)
16:36, 4 October 2020 (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.
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.
It's not a "mention in one book" but significant coverage in an encyclopedia in addition to the book cited in the article quite a few hours before you commented here.
Phil Bridger (
talk)
16:11, 1 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete unless further sourcing can be provided. A cursory google search reveals a great deal of interest from American activists on Twitter and virtually nothing in anything resembling a
WP:RS. Given that the Herero genocide has received quite a bit of scholarly attention, this is pretty surprising. —Brigade Piron (
talk)
16:08, 1 October 2020 (UTC)reply
And what makes you think that a cursory Google search is in any way relevant, particlarly for an article about a subject that has received quite a bit of scholarly attention? Look in books and academic articles for
WP:RS. They are very rarely found by a web search. If you look in the place where Twitter posts and the like predominate then that is what you will find.
Phil Bridger (
talk)
16:17, 1 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Merge with redirect to
Herero and Namaqua genocide - If all we have right now is the one source, which says she is known for her participation in that event, and the result is it's a one-sentence stub, the reader will be better served reading about her in the article about the genocide. If more sources are found, the redirect can (and should) be expanded to a stub. I don't doubt that there are more sources out there, but my thought on
WP:PAGEDECIDE is it's better as a redirect until we have more material to present.
Lev!vich21:01, 1 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep - I am finding many sources when searching academic journals; I've added a few to the article. Perhaps a WP:BEFORE may not have been completed? Subject of the article is notable, however the article can be improved (which is not a reason for deletion). Meets GNG.
Netherzone (
talk)
21:35, 1 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Bundy's Let the Women Keep Silent in the Churches almost seems to have copied this page. I can't read the relevant part of the The Cultural Unity of Negro Africa, please advise what it says. The UN report only states "Kaipkire of the Herero led her people in battles against European slave traders." These are passing mentions giving the same limited information, not SIGCOV.
Mztourist (
talk)
05:18, 2 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment Just because a writer slaps to word "encyclopedia" on their book does not make it automatically a more forceful source than anything else we have.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
19:26, 2 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Johnpacklambert I know you like to be direct, but with all due respect, it is not necessary to make your point by denigrating the book and its author by claiming that the word "encylopedia" was cavalierly "slapped on". The University of Michigan Press (the original publisher, now in multiple editions) vets their books. The reason some editors mentioned it is that it counts towards
WP:ANYBIO.
Netherzone (
talk)
16:36, 4 October 2020 (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.