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 delete. Content fork. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:38, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vandal Kingdom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unneeded article fork. Straight copy and paste from section of Vandals. SpinningSpark 13:59, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment odd one this. It's almost a copy though the maps have diverged. Guess it comes down to whether the Vandals article is 'too long to read comfortably' and so should its Kingdom section should be condensed, with link to the full text on a separate page - might not be a bad thing? If so, question is why the user is working on it so slowly/AfD was so quick. I'll ping him and see what's up; it's an account that has edited many historical pages so there may be 'method in his madness'. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:22, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -- Copying text from one article to make another is not an acceptable practice, where they permanently duplicate each other. There are three possible ways of dealing with this:

1. Prune the parent article (for which this article is already identified as a main article).
2. Greatly expand this one, so that it adds detail that does not appear in the parent article.
3. Delete this one.

I have no reference as to which should be done, but if no onew is prepared to undertake either of the first two, deletion is the only possible option. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:21, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Vandals until someone writes something original. --Xijky (talk) 15:44, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- I've now expanded and reorganized the article a bit. It would be unfortunate to delete it before it's properly established.Newsleep (talk) 17:05, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So is there agreement that the matching section at Vandals can be cut down? For if not, this can't work... did you discuss this on the Vandals talk page already? Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:11, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unless Newsleep or some one else will edit donw the section in the Vandals, this must be deleted (Only commented above). Peterkingiron (talk) 19:15, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - this discussion is going nowhere. WP:CONTENTFORK. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:50, 30 November 2011 (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.