Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Germanic peoples (modern) (2nd nomination)

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 redirect to Germanic peoples. From reading the discussion, it seems like there is clear consensus to remove this article but a little disagreement about whether the content can actually be merged; thus redirecting so that the article is removed and people can copy content from the history if consensus arises that it is appropriate. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:29, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Germanic peoples (modern)

[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)

Clear content fork by a user who is not getting his way at Germanic peoples. This is not how content disputes are settled. I have not been involved in that debate, but it is pretty clear that nobody is arguing for a distinct "modern" Germanic peoples. The dispute is over whether the Germanic peoples of antiquity can be said to still exist, in some sense, today. Srnec (talk) 15:27, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:32, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Germanic peoples per WP:DEL-REASON (5) and WP:MERGEREASON (2, 3, 4).

Per WP:DEL-REASON (5) a content fork should not be deleted if a merger is appropriate. WP:MERGEREASON (2, 3, 4) states that an article should be merged if there is a large overlap between them, if one of the articles is short, or if the short article is better understood within the context of the larger article. Germanic peoples (modern) is a short article better understood within the context of the article Germanic peoples, with whom it has a substantial overlap (see the sources used in this article). A merger is therefore appropriate in this case.

As long as information on modern Germanic peoples is considered beyond the scope of the article Germanic peoples, this article can however not be considered a content fork, and should be kept. Modern Germanic peoples are just as notable as modern Slavic peoples of Turkic peoples. Krakkos (talk) 20:29, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your last point is wrong if this information is considered beyond the scope of the article Germanic peoples because it is not agreed that there are modern Germanic peoples. I think you are failing to consider that there are Slavs because they call themselves Slavs, from Russia to Croatia. I'm not sure if most Germanic speakers are even aware they speak a Germanic language. Srnec (talk) 00:58, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging, JeBonSer, Iazyges, Ermenrich, CsikosLo, Haukurth, Obenritter, JanderVK, Jabberwoch and Bloodofox, who are active members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Germanic studies. Krakkos (talk) 20:42, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the deletion nomination and the article talk page and general history of this silly discussion. It is a content fork to try to publish material not suitable for WP. It is not the first attempt.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:13, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Germanic peoples, I took part of the discussion of other page, however I understood the arguments of both sides, I uphold the core of my argumentation.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:49, 1 October 2019 (UTC))[reply]
Merge to Germanic peoples. The content was mostly covered there until a relatively recent alteration of the article's scope. A couple RfCs on Talk:Germanic peoples were started by a block-evading troll (who has pretended to be a Kurdish editor complaining that Wikipedia is similar to Metapedia as well as an editor named Aryanman902 complaining that "wikipedia is part of a Judeo-Masonic khazar mafia conspiracy theory"), and these were seemingly used as the basis to change the article's scope. Regardless of the outcome of this AfD, I think a fresh RfC at the talk page that is not tainted by association with a barely literate sockpuppet would be useful to settle the dispute. Hrodvarsson (talk) 03:48, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. This article is irrelevant. Modern Germanic peoples are related to the descendants who uses the Germanic language and there is no need this article to be existed. JeBonSer ^{(talk | sign)} 11:10, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Do RS refer to these peoples as Germanic? I think we should be basing our decision on that. I tend to agree that it makes inherent sense that they would be considered Germanic, however, given the way we discuss Turkic peoples, Slavic peoples, etc.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:22, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per JeBonSer. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 20:45, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back to Germanic peoples, although there's not a lot of content to merge in the first place. The analogy to Celts (modern) is apt, although that article has incomparably more content. There is no point at which the Germanic peoples can be shown to have disappeared (in the case of the Celts, there is at least a period in Late Antiquity or so which provides a potential "breaking point"), nor is there a reason or mechanism for how this should have been accomplished (there is clearly continuity until the modern period), so there is no reason to treat the group any differently from Turkic peoples, Iranian peoples, Slavic peoples, Balts, etc., which are not necessarily associated with a well-developed common identity, either – despite attempts to establish one, much like in the case of the modern Celtic nations. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 14:02, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The comments added by Florian Blaschke are splendid and do not need repeating by me. Content should be merged. KingofGangsters (talk) 03:42, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Germanic peoples, per nom and Florian Blaschke. Johnbod (talk) 16:35, 5 October 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.