Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Native Americans and horses

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. Some say that "an article being in poor shape is not reason for deletion" - but that doesn't exclude draftification, as consensus here determines. Any recreation should, given the concerns here, go through AfC or a consensus-based process. Sandstein 11:36, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Native Americans and horses

[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)

This article is such a mess the only solution is WP: TNT. The concept is notable, but this one is poorly written, poorly sourced, has a staggering amount of inaccuracies and undue weighting, and so on. In some cases it perpetuates stereotypes about Native people and has any number of other cringe-worthy elements. Montanabw^(talk) 06:45, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Montanabw^(talk) 06:45, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Montanabw^(talk) 06:45, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Montanabw^(talk) 06:45, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:00, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify: This is a new user, and this is his/her only article thus far. It is also cringeworthy as per nom, and needs a professional editing eye sprayed over it with lots of guidance to this user. This is not the place for perorations on good essay writing, but this is what this article needs. --Whiteguru (talk) 11:18, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree that this is full of inaccuracies and awkward simplifications, and needs to be rewritten. However, this is a production from a WikiEd course that has finished, and as is frequently the case with these courses, the author has not edited before or since and is unlikely to do so again. If the article was draftified, it would probably sit in draft for 6 months and then be soft-deleted. So if we want to get usable material out of this, that is not the way. And the topic per se is valid and well-documented, to the extent that I'm surprised we don't have a relevant separate article yet. Montanabw, you have an overview in these matters - are you sure this is not already covered elsewhere? Aren't there any good merge targets? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:43, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Add: there's Plains_Indians#The_horse, which covers a good chunk of this. Maybe merge there? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:19, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply The material in it at present is virtually all about the Plains tribes, so @Elmidae: it could be merged there, yes. Montanabw^(talk) 17:54, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep This nomination is not policy-based and is contrary to numerous policies including WP:ATD;WP:BITE;WP:IMPERFECT;WP:NOTCLEANUP;WP:OWN;WP:POINT;&c. I could list lots of sources but this is not necessary as the article already has a reasonable selection. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:01, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Aaand here comes the bullshit. One wonders if it will take another decade before Andrew learns that notability, or availiability of sources, are not the only keep/delete criteria (no one has even hinted in that direction in this case); that horking out links to half a dozen vaguely connected policies is not Making An Argument; and that accusations of WP:OWN and WP:POINT require some smidgen of proof. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:13, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and AfD nominations are violations of WP:BITE now? Am I dreaming? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:15, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
One just has to read these policies to understand their relevance. I could explain them all at length but that would take some time and my primary point is that this nomination is so egregiously bad that it should be closed forthwith. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:59, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is ineligible for speedy keeping since none of the reasons at WP:SKCRIT are met. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:27, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The nomination "fails to advance any argument for deletion". It makes some vague complaints but fails to address the key point of our policy WP:ATD, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." The topic is clearly quite notable and the nomination admits this. There is therefore no obstacle to improvement in situ and no pressing reason to delete such as BLP is given. This is the worst nomination I've seen since this one which started in a similar way, "Ugh, this is a mess...". Andrew🐉(talk) 15:46, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, the nominator gave a clear rationale for deleting. You may think it's a bad rationale, but that's not enough for a speedy keep. Speedy keeps are for nominations along the lines of "this is stoopid lulz", not for someone citing a well-trodden essay and who's claiming an article has major, unfixable flaws. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:02, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, the valid reasons for deletion are listed at WP:DEL-REASON and WP:TNT isn't in the list, not even close. The nomination is essentially WP:RUBBISH, which is an argument to avoid. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:07, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just so nobody is deceived, WP:DEL-REASON isn't an exhaustive list (it says so right at the top). If people are going to wikilawyer about policies, they perhaps shouldn't misrepresent what's actually stated there. Reyk _YO! 12:04, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good grief, first off, if you need policy, then among other things, it's a Fork from other articles on the Plains Indians and various tribes within that tradition, as noted below. But more to the point, others are suggesting good ATDs, which is one outcome to an AfD nomination, and I think there are good suggestions being discussed. As noted below, TNT is a valid rationale when "an article should exist, but the article (and all the versions in history) is too deeply flawed to work from. When that point is reached, deletion provides a reset, and give editors a clean slate." At any rate, this particular article is of low quality and what is duplicative can be moved into other articles. I thought about just boldly blanking it and redirecting it to the horse section of Plains Indian article, but thought that would be even more "bitey" than putting it up for discussion here to see what consensus arises. Montanabw^(talk) 18:26, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify as things currently stand. I suspect a really good article could be written about this topic (has anyone checked to make sure we don't have anything at a different title?), but this is of such low quality that it's inappropriate to keep in mainspace. I certainly echo Elmidae's concerns about getting lost there, and I would encourage notes left at any WikiProjects that might be interested. Another reasonable option would be to cut this down to a stub and keep in mainspace; that would even better than what's here now. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:19, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have made more than one search for an existing page. The closest I found was Horses in the United States. That has something to say about native Americans but suggesting that they are or were exclusive and subsidiary subjects of the United States would be somewhat controversial and so it would be better to cover them separately, as is done here. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:16, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(as added above) There's also Plains_Indians#The_horse, which has more substantial overlap. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:20, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve or draftify - This article was written by a student editor as a Wiki Edu Foundation-supported assignment. It needs a lot of work, but that is not a reason to delete. The subject is obviously notable. Netherzone (talk) 15:46, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I made some improvements to the article. Ample sources already listed in the article. Here is a link for those super lazy. Native_Americans_and_horses#References Obviously the relationship between native Americans and horses is quite notable, it brought about massive change. Dream Focus 16:26, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that this is someone’s term paper, and I’d give it a “C” at best. The creator fou d sources, but misunderstood what the sources said, uses them out of context, put undue weight on certain tribal groups, and added a ton of unsourced commentary. I just now went through it, deleted the worst bits, and tagged a bunch of the problems if someone really wants to fix things. Montanabw^(talk) 17:54, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify/Merge This could be a reasonable concept to have an article on, but still far too much is unsourced, or are quite generic statements about the use of horses that can apply to any culture beyond Native Americans lumped together. Per Elmidae, Plains_Indians#The_horse is a suitable place for this topic, and it would be best merged there, then split as reasonable. Reywas92^Talk 18:08, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator supports draftification or merge this article needs WEEKS of work to fix. I would support moving it back to draft space, and then removing most of the inaccurate and cringeworthy material. Yes, there are sources, but even the sources need to be assessed critically and in context. I suppose TNT was a pretty drastic suggestion, but getting it out of mainspace (and searches) and into draft space is a good solution Montanabw^(talk) 17:11, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is far more likely to be developed in main space than draft space. Dream Focus 17:18, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dream Focus, I don’t oppose removing all the junk and reducing it to a much shorter article, or merging into the Plains Indians article’s horse section. I kind of tag-bombed all the problems, and they aren’t easily fixable just by adding a citation to what is already badly-written and poorly understood material, so the content so tagged should be removed until it can be rewritten. I did ping the Equine and Indigenous people Wikiprojects. Montanabw^(talk) 17:58, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge anything useful that can be salvaged from this article into the preexisting Horse culture article. The authors of Native Americans and horses clearly didn't research preexisting articles. Yuchitown (talk) 17:55, 11 September 2020 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]
I don't see how it'd fit in that short article. Perhaps Plains_Indians#The_horse Dream Focus 18:49, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As Montanabw pointed out, most the statements made in Native Americans and horses are factually incorrect and offensively stereotypical. It's mainly gross generations pertaining only to Great Plain tribes during a particular historical period, that is covered by the Horse culture article, which of course would be larger if we expanded it. Yuchitown (talk) 21:02, 11 September 2020 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]

Delete/Merge- the description of this as a C grade term paper is remarkably apt. Maybe there's an article to be written on this topic, maybe not; but this isn't it. WP:TNT seems called for, since in my experience changing a pre-existing bad article into a good one is harder than writing a good one from scratch. If there's anything salvageable here (I'm skeptical) then Horse culture looks as though it could accommodate it. Reyk _YO! 18:56, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep / merge to horse culture or similar. Clearly notable subject with plenty of sources. After routine clean-up, which is not an AfD issue, it may be fine as a stand-alone or could be merged. Gleeanon409 (talk) 23:03, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify Valid topic, but needs more work. Zoozaz1 (talk) 04:30, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a notable topic, an article being in poor shape is not reason for deletion.★Trekker (talk) 13:38, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - not in shape for mainspace. The merge to Horse Culture could be apt, but I think this could definitely be worked up to its own article.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:47, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify, the article is nowhere near main space quality. Cavalryman (talk) 01:30, 13 September 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Keep or draftify (not a merge) -- This may have the makings of a useful article, but it is not there yet: it needs a lead section and an introduction: the horse is not native to America, so that the article needs to explain something about how the horse was introduced to America and how natives first acquired them. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:15, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep WP:SKCRIT - the nominator fails to advance a policy or guideline based rationale. WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP. A solid article which meets GNG and has even improved during this AfD. Lightburst (talk) 17:51, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
See my comment above, Lightburst. And your link to NOTCLEANUP shows precisely why I nominated it: "an article should exist, but the article (and all the versions in history) is too deeply flawed to work from. When that point is reached, deletion provides a reset, and give editors a clean slate." Montanabw^(talk) 18:26, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's not eligible for SK anyway, since other have already !voted to delete. If people are going to wikilawyer about policies, they perhaps shouldn't misrepresent what's actually stated there. I actually suspect most uses of "sPeEdY kEeP!1! nO aRgUmEnT fOr DeLeTiOn" occur on nominations that, like this one, do contain an argument for deletion and are therefore just intended to rile up the nominator. Reyk _YO! 13:10, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There are issues with the article, but it's undoubtedly notable (such that I'm surprised we didn't cover it already under a different title). Doesn't seem like it's quite in WP:TNT territory. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:42, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Horse culture. Yuchitown (talk)Yuchitown

Draftify. Looks like a mess of WP:OR at the moment, but an apparently notable topic that could benefit from additional work and quality control at AfC. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 00:06, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per nom. Just because a topic may be notable doesn't mean that the article is ready for mainspace. –dlthewave ☎ 04:17, 18 September 2020 (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.