Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Pawnee capture of the Cheyenne Sacred Arrows

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by Lourdes (talk | contribs) at 20:16, 25 July 2018 (→The Pawnee capture of the Cheyenne Sacred Arrows: Closed as keep (XFDcloser)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
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. (non-admin closure) Lourdes 20:16, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Pawnee capture of the Cheyenne Sacred Arrows

[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

The Pawnee capture of the Cheyenne Sacred Arrows (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Should not have come out of AfC. User has been using antiquated, offensive sources (calling people's religions "magic") and refusing to let admins see copies when we suspect plagiarism. Every one of these articles has needed massive cleanup. This one is full of inaccuracies, and what content is correct is already covered in other articles. I considered merging it to Pawnee or Cheyenne, but the low quality of sources don't make it worth it. This is grade-school level writing combined with probable copyvios (the sources just aren't online to check). We need to delete it. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 18:40, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment – Kudo’s to the editor that created this article. A lot of time – effort and work went into the creating the piece. However, though I can verify the references used are legitimate scholarly works, I cannot verify the exact content of the work as it pertains to this article. At this point, the piece seems to be just a cut and paste from the selected volumes, which would violate Copyright Violations or may be viewed as Original Research. As such, either way, may be available for a speedy delete. ShoesssS Talk 19:10, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - No valid rationale for deletion given. AfD is not cleanup. Neither is AfC. A number of sources already in the article, and the most cursory of online searches shows there are more to work with besides.
Beyond that, repeatedly accusing someone of plagiarism without evidence other than a dislike of their writing style (and doing so in such an aggressive manner while not being bothered to produce any actual evidence) is bordering on WP:ASPERSIONS. For what it's worth, some of the sources, like this one and this one are available online (imagine what you might find if you looked). They're cited 23 times in the article between the two, and I see no evidence of close paraphrasing, much less outright copying in any of them. Even despite the fact that both these works are in the public domain, and we actually could directly copy and paste from them without quoted attribution if we wanted to. Despite that, each time the author directly quotes the text of the sources, they appear to correctly place them in direct quotes with accompanying citations and page numbers.
Suggest the nominator have a cup of tea, and refresh their understanding of our deletion policy along with their assumptions of good faith. If you have a problem with the way an article is written, go fix it. If you have a problem with the criteria for acceptance at AfC, you're welcome to suggest changes. GMGtalk 19:48, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, as one of the people speeding these things out of AfC, and going after those of us who have concerns, it's clear you either don't understand the problems or share this user's POV. This is not simply a cleanup issue, and it's not appropriate to dump stuff like this in the 'pedia expecting others to find it and dedicate massive amounts of time to rewriting things that aren't even significant enough to be covered in the main articles about these tribes (that this user doesn't seem to even read). The presence of some good sources doesn't make up for all the misrepresentations, misinformation, and other concerns happening here. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 20:11, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, I understand deletion policy, and AfD isn't cleanup. If you have a problem with the way the article is written, fix it. If you can't or won't, then tag the article if you must, and let someone else do it. "The presence of some good sources" is what determines notability. And for the record, the fact that you are apparently deleting images of newspaper articles from 1836 (file, original) as having no permission makes me seriously wonder whether you understand deletion policy at all. That combined with the fact that you typed this entire nomination out, and only after an hour, and an out of process deletion of this page did you realize twinkle doesn't make you type out rationales for G12 nominations. Hmm. So in case I haven't been abundantly clear, I seriously suspect you need to chill out, slow down, stop harassing the author of this article, and refresh your understanding of policy. GMGtalk 20:26, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am sick and tired of cleaning up after this editor and also of the copy vios [1] This is getting beyond ridiculous. This article shifts between fifth grade level and passages ripped from articles and books just like every other article he's added and every single time his articles get approved without checking them. This particular one is full of blatant inaccuracies and makes the wiki look pathetic. Indigenous girl (talk) 20:42, 18 July 2018 (UTC) Delete btw, if it wasn't clear. Indigenous girl (talk) 20:43, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.revolvy.com/main/index.php?s=The+Pawnee+capture+of+the+Cheyenne
You do realize that Revolvy is a Wikipedia mirror? GMGtalk 20:57, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
When I get home I will link to the books then that the particular copy vios come from. There are so many inaccuracies I don't know why anyone would want to keep the article nor do I understand why repeated approval is given for articles with inaccurate content. I mean, the remaining two arrows were repatriated over a century ago and the article states differently. One would think that there would be a consensus for well written, accurate and true information without copy violations. Why not simply redirect to the Cheyenne article and I will add a small accurate bit about the bundle that is free of plagiarism. Indigenous girl (talk) 21:18, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • If there are copyright violations, we should remove them. I've already checked two of the most cited sources in the article, and they have no issues, and are public domain besides. If there are inaccuracies, we should correct them. That's the way Wikipedia works. Given that your "sick and tired" consists of two edits to Arikara scouts, and that appears to be the only article this user has ever written that you have touched at all, I have fairly limited sympathy with your apparent exasperation. Wikipedia is a work in progress and there is no deadline. We do not delete articles for not being completely accurate and impeccably written, we improve those articles so that they are. There is no obligation for you to do so if you do not wish to. But we do not delete articles because you do not wish to improve them. We delete articles because they lack significant coverage in secondary sources. There has so far been no argument here whatsoever that this is the case, and as it stands, both your !votes should be disregarded entirely by the closer for making no valid argument for deletion. GMGtalk 21:42, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Why isn't A Companion to Custer and the Little Big Horn cited? [1] I'd like to know. I'll go through more books tomorrow. Have you actually read the article? It's completely nonsensical. I really feel it would be best merged with the Cheyenne article. Indigenous girl (talk) 02:02, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I dunno why that particular source isn't used. What I can tell you is that having committed all of half an hour to it, I was able to find all but two sources available online, only one of which requires a journal subscription. GMGtalk 13:16, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't ask why it wasn't used, it was. I asked why it wasn't cited.Indigenous girl (talk) 16:00, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, unless you've spotted a direct unattributed or misattributed quote that I've so far missed, it's not entirely clear how one might determine this was used in particular over another similar source. But if you feel it will improve the verifiability of the article, feel free to add it when appropriate. GMGtalk 16:30, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There are sufficient minimal, reliable, sources to satisfy the minimum required on notability grounds, as noted by GMG. Copyvio accusations need to be clearly made, a general accusation isn't sufficient, especially when overview tools like Earwig don't indicate a breach. Inability to access sources, via paywalls, offline etc does not invalidate them. Quality accusations are the most grounded, but as is always made clear, aren't grounds for article deletion. Saying you could add shorter accurate detail to another article isn't sufficient, if the article could legitimately stand as-is. Nosebagbear (talk)
"One would think that there would be a consensus for well written, accurate and true information without copy violations." (Indigenous Girl) - sure, there is a consensus that this is better, but there is formal consensus that a breach of the first three aspects are not sufficient for removal - a rough consensus here would not be enough to overrule that. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:09, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:16, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:16, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:16, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, a notable subject that warrants an article that has numerous references meeting WP:GNG. ps. as for the article being so inaccurate/badly written that it should be deleted, instead you can always be bold, reduce it to 2 or 3 sentences, keep the references and/or add a "further reading" section, so other editors may expand it later. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:32, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per reasoning of GMG. I am convinced.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 04:27, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If there is a copyvio, it is not obvious (Earwig does not show anything). Article could be improved - but is not at TNT level. The subject itself (Cheyenne magic/sacred/medicine arrows) is clearly notable - beyond the sources in the article, the event (and subsequent searches for the arrows) is covered in RSes in a before. In as much as language needs to be updated to contemporary sources - that not a deletion rationale - nor is labelling sources as "antiquated, offensive sources".Icewhiz (talk) 05:28, 22 July 2018 (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.
  1. ^ https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/9781119071839
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Pawnee_capture_of_the_Cheyenne_Sacred_Arrows&oldid=851976851"