Village communities: tool shows that 89.1% of the current text is the same as 1911.  What initially struck me as odd was the article's complete and total focus on Europe.  The 1911 encyclopedia's explanation for why it was "sufficient to confine the present inquiry ... to nations of Aryan race" was "principally because the Aryan race in its history has gone through all sorts of experiences" (it also said that it "might also be reasonably urged" that the Aryan race was most important, yikes).  The section explaining the Aryan focus was removed from the article in 2008, [26] and since then the total focus on Europe has been unexplained.  So there are the content issues, and now here is why I think the best path forward is deletion.  I thought about merging Village communities into Village but I do not consider any of the info in Village communities to be worthy of inclusion.  I'm disconcerted by phrases like "we hear that" and "a good clue to the subject is provided by a Serb proverb" that suggest a tenuous relationship to verifiable fact.  The 1911 Britannica might be a reliable source in articles like University court or Castle-guard , which deal with old European history, but I don't think it's a reliable source here.  Plus even if I were to improve it, the content would overlap with the village article.  Crunchydillpickle🥒 ( talk ) 23:44, 13 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Draft : ?  I guess...  This exists [27] , [28] or [29] .  Simply copying the text from an 100 yr old encyclopedia is a no-no.  Two of these sources are older than the Britannica, one more recent.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 00:18, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment It looks like the Theory of Village Communities was part of the study of the history of economics in the second half of the nineteenth century - this article by Denman Waldo Ross is an 1880 review describing various sources (not all in English, and many looking at non-European cultures, albeit from a colonial perspective).  Maybe we should have an article about the theory, but it'd need to be more critical and better-sourced than the current article.  Adam Sampson ( talk ) 00:42, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History , Organizations , Social science ,  and Europe .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 02:28, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete While an article on the study of village communities may be suitable, this article on the study of village communities is not.  Darkfrog24 ( talk ) 17:14, 16 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  WP:DEL-CONTENT importantly notes that when editing can address the reasons for deletion, we should edit the article to make it better instead of deleting it .  This discussion has turned up adequate sourcing to write some article about village communities (or the economic theory thereof), and the article should of course be improved.  But deletion here seems unwise.  So too does draftification, as the article was uploaded here in 2006, and sending this to the draft heap as a backdoor to deletion seems ill-advised in light of relevant policies and guidelines .  — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 01:24, 21 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, B E C K Y S A Y L E S 07:35, 21 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete I'm not sure how this is a different topic than village (or, the history of villages).   And none of the EB1911 content should be retained.  Walsh90210 ( talk ) 00:51, 22 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete The prose is not encyclopedic and should be entirely rewritten if not outright scrapped.  I also share the same concerns as the individual who nominated the article for deletion and agree that little if any information included here is worth retaining.  Dobbyelf62 ( talk ) 13:46, 24 June 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.

Discussion outcome: delete