Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hundred Years' War, 1415–1453

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. WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) —Alalch E. 04:21, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hundred Years' War, 1415–1453[edit]

[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)

Though the text looks largely (but not totally) OK, the absence of any sources means one cannot rely on the article at all. Strongly suggest that it is rewritten with reliable citations. Belle Fast (talk) 16:53, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Belle Fast (talk) 16:53, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:05, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:05, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:05, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:05, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:06, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:06, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:06, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Deletion rationale is flawed. This is clearly notable (consult any history of the 100 years war), and the article clearly needs referencing. But references don't have to be in the article - they just have to be known to exist. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:38, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not in question. It is the unverifiability of the article that, in my view, needs addressing. Every day on Wikipedia one learns things however. I honestly did not know that an article on a notable topic can be created using sources that exist but will not be publicly revealed (and may myself take advantage of this useful rule). Belle Fast (talk) 21:37, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Let there be no doubt that the article should be properly referenced. But deletion is nor for cleanup. You should tag the article, and by all means add references yourself if you can. Just tagging it will help as it will attract editors. But again, AfD is the wrong venue. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:08, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ETA, I have added some books to the article. I'll need to do some reading before I can find the correct citations from them. That won't happen this week. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:37, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep regrettable though the current situation is, deletion is far from an appropriate response. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:41, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: per WP:SK3. No accurate deletion rationale has been provided (rather a call for improvement better suited for the WP:MILHIST talk page). Additionally, topic is clearly notable. Curbon7 (talk) 18:33, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Notable, should never have been nominated for deletion. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 20:01, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, although maybe it should be moved to "Lancastrian War" or similar afterwards. AryKun (talk) 20:17, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - deletion ≠ cleanup. Clearly notable.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 20:35, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject is unquestionably notable. TH1980 (talk) 01:20, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep AfD is not cleanup. ResonantDis_tortion 09:18, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and close, WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. The topic is notable and I don't think the referencing is to the point of WP:TNT. — Knightoftheswords 18:36, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (edit conflict) -- Except in BLP cases, a lack of sources is not grounds for deletion. There is in fact in the article a list of books, presumably used in writing the article. The present title is not wholly satisfactory, as it only covers the final part of the war, not the whole 100 years, but "Lancastrian War" would not be an appropriate title, as it is a term I have never heard of. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:42, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article can be improved and deletion is unnecessary. Rager7 (talk) 19:53, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As noted by others, the issue relating to sources is not grounds for deletion. Dunarc (talk) 21:00, 22 October 2023 (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.