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

The Pawnee capture of the Cheyenne Sacred Arrows

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

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

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)

• 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)
• 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. GMG^talk 19:48, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

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)

• Comment I meant to do this as a speedy but Twinkle is being weird. Sorry for any hiccups. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 20:01, 18 July 2018 (UTC)