Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pyreneism

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 draftify‎. Moved to draft per consensus. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:11, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pyreneism

[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)

Not a thing, just [Alpinism] by a different name. Article is also mostly composed of random quotes - not really encyclopedic. Article even states "The specialists may talk of pyreneism, himalaism, andenism, it refers to the same action of climbing mountains by their faces, by their ridges or by combining both." LegalSmeagolian (talk) 20:33, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, France, and Spain. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 20:33, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
keep. The subject is valid: Mountaineering in Pyrenees. The current title looks unusual, but reasonable. - Altenmann >talk 21:32, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify - This article seems to be google-translated from the Spanish or Catalan original. The syntax is garbled and almost incomprehensible. But it does seem to be an article about the term and concept "Pyreneism" as used in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, rather than about mountaineering the Pyrenees generally - i.e. it's about the self-conscious culture and literary tradition around the practice rather than the practice generally. The sources seem good if slightly tending to WP:OR. BUT we can't have an article that is completely incoherent to read. The prose and syntax are a disaster. This really needs to be rewritten sentence by sentence in draft space before returning to the main space. Llajwa (talk) 20:18, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would also support this. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 16:11, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse the above Draftify Its not ready for main space, AfC can judge the other issues once the article is actually ready for publishing. // Timothy :: talk 18:16, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:04, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft: as suggested seems fine. Seems to be a claim to notability, based on the 100 yr history of the thing described here. Oaktree b (talk) 14:24, 31 January 2024 (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.