- 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. Along with this closure, I highly encourage any editors to take this as an opportunity to fix the article up a bit. ( non-admin closure) Kharkiv07 ( T) 00:52, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
- Timeline of Swiss history ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Contested PROD. While Wikipedia is a perpetually unfinished work in progress, sometimes it is better to have no article instead of a very bad article that nobody is interested in improving. This is such a case.
This would be a useful article if somebody who is knowledgeable about the topic had done some actual work. As it is, this article has remained in this fragmentary, broadly incorrect and generally useless state since 2013. While the few dates included are not always wrong per se, they are very poorly sourced, described and chosen. For example, there was definitely no declaration of Swiss independence in 1307 (perhaps the 1291 Bundesbrief is meant, but that was no such thing either). In 1877 "flooding" is mentioned, with no indication of where that happened or why it was important. Likewise, why a particular and inconsequential unsourced 1958 referendum "in favor of a nuclear bomb" is included puzzles me; the Swiss people vote multiple times each year on many issues.
This was clearly written by somebody who has little or no knowledge of Swiss history, taking dates at random from whichever half-understood source was at hand. In this state, it is a disservice to our readership, and would need to be totally rewritten. Until somebody comes along who has the skills and the time to competently recreate it from scratch, it should be deleted. In terms of alphabet soup: it fails WP:V and WP:SYNTH. Sandstein 10:03, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- Keep It is easy to find more sources which confirm the significance of the first date in the current draft (7 Nov 1307) - see Fodor's Switzerland, for example. The page already contains a good source which confirms the notability of the topic per WP:LISTN. The rest is then a matter of ordinary editing and our editing policy is clear: "Collaborative editing means that incomplete or poorly written first drafts can evolve over time into excellent articles. Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome.". Note also that we have similar timelines for many other major countries and it would be absurd to omit a major nation like Switzerland. Andrew D. ( talk) 12:39, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- I see now what is meant with the 1307 date: the Rütlischwur, a legendary event dubiously dated to 1307, and certainly not a "declaration of independence". I'm absolutely for keeping this if it is totally rewritten (even as a stub), but until somebody is willing to do that, keeping this with completely inaccurate and misleading information is actively harmful to our mission. Sandstein 14:03, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- And what's stopping you doing this cleanup yourself, per WP:SOFIXIT? Andrew D. ( talk) 16:44, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- Wrong question - if you want to keep the article, what's stopping you? I don't need to fix it when I can more easily improve the encyclopedia very quickly by removing this positively misleading and incorrect content. Others who do have the time and inclination can still (re-)write it then. Sandstein 16:55, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- Keep since it is only 2 years old and since several sources have been added in the past few days. Why kill it now when it is being actively edited? -- M2545 ( talk) 17:28, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- THere have been no substantial edits (in fact, only one) since the deletion nomination. Sandstein 05:54, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 02:04, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 04:59, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 04:59, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 05:00, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- Keep and let it grow. I just added the Sonderbund War to the list. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 14:17, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
- Comment -- I was going to vote delete, but accept the arguments of others. Nevertheless 500-600 years with nothing mentioned is a big gap. Heavily tag fro improvement. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:50, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
- 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.
The result was keep. Along with this closure, I highly encourage any editors to take this as an opportunity to fix the article up a bit. ( non-admin closure) Kharkiv07 ( T) 00:52, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
- Timeline of Swiss history ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Contested PROD. While Wikipedia is a perpetually unfinished work in progress, sometimes it is better to have no article instead of a very bad article that nobody is interested in improving. This is such a case.
This would be a useful article if somebody who is knowledgeable about the topic had done some actual work. As it is, this article has remained in this fragmentary, broadly incorrect and generally useless state since 2013. While the few dates included are not always wrong per se, they are very poorly sourced, described and chosen. For example, there was definitely no declaration of Swiss independence in 1307 (perhaps the 1291 Bundesbrief is meant, but that was no such thing either). In 1877 "flooding" is mentioned, with no indication of where that happened or why it was important. Likewise, why a particular and inconsequential unsourced 1958 referendum "in favor of a nuclear bomb" is included puzzles me; the Swiss people vote multiple times each year on many issues.
This was clearly written by somebody who has little or no knowledge of Swiss history, taking dates at random from whichever half-understood source was at hand. In this state, it is a disservice to our readership, and would need to be totally rewritten. Until somebody comes along who has the skills and the time to competently recreate it from scratch, it should be deleted. In terms of alphabet soup: it fails WP:V and WP:SYNTH. Sandstein 10:03, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- Keep It is easy to find more sources which confirm the significance of the first date in the current draft (7 Nov 1307) - see Fodor's Switzerland, for example. The page already contains a good source which confirms the notability of the topic per WP:LISTN. The rest is then a matter of ordinary editing and our editing policy is clear: "Collaborative editing means that incomplete or poorly written first drafts can evolve over time into excellent articles. Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome.". Note also that we have similar timelines for many other major countries and it would be absurd to omit a major nation like Switzerland. Andrew D. ( talk) 12:39, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- I see now what is meant with the 1307 date: the Rütlischwur, a legendary event dubiously dated to 1307, and certainly not a "declaration of independence". I'm absolutely for keeping this if it is totally rewritten (even as a stub), but until somebody is willing to do that, keeping this with completely inaccurate and misleading information is actively harmful to our mission. Sandstein 14:03, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- And what's stopping you doing this cleanup yourself, per WP:SOFIXIT? Andrew D. ( talk) 16:44, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- Wrong question - if you want to keep the article, what's stopping you? I don't need to fix it when I can more easily improve the encyclopedia very quickly by removing this positively misleading and incorrect content. Others who do have the time and inclination can still (re-)write it then. Sandstein 16:55, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- Keep since it is only 2 years old and since several sources have been added in the past few days. Why kill it now when it is being actively edited? -- M2545 ( talk) 17:28, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- THere have been no substantial edits (in fact, only one) since the deletion nomination. Sandstein 05:54, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 02:04, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 04:59, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 04:59, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 05:00, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- Keep and let it grow. I just added the Sonderbund War to the list. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 14:17, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
- Comment -- I was going to vote delete, but accept the arguments of others. Nevertheless 500-600 years with nothing mentioned is a big gap. Heavily tag fro improvement. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:50, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
- 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.