Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coast Salish people and salmon

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. General consensus to keep. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 03:24, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coast Salish people and salmon[edit]

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

The only contribution by this user, I believe that this is a case of WP:NOTESSAY Gbawden (talk) 07:17, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 07:25, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

At first glance, I'm not seeing any glaring issues that would fall afoul of WP:NOTESSAY. It's well-sourced at least, though there may still be WP:OR. I'll have to look more in-depth. clpo13_(talk) 07:27, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Nothing that can't be cleaned up. It's a notable enough topic per WP:GNG. clpo13_(talk) 16:06, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 07:32, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the article seems well enough sourced to be notable, and is not essaylike. Some sections seem rather thinly sourced and might indeed contain original research, but the overall tone is encyclopedic. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:23, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, it is presented from a First Nations standpoint which isn't usually the case for an encyclopedia, but which is more appropriate for this subject than a 'neutral' Eurocentric tone. It seems properly sourced and it is obviously a notable subject. Curiocurio (talk) 18:52, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this is a student project page. They've done quite a good job except for forgetting to link to it from other pages. I'm the instructor; I'll add a few links. Rosieredfield (talk) 21:12, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:NOTSOAPBOX, WP:NOTESSAY and WP:OR. The problem with this article is summed up neatly by User:Curiocurio who argues above that the article is "presented from a First Nations standpoint which is... more appropriate for this subject than a 'neutral'" voice. Precisely. The article, with the exception of a few nods to sourcing, speaks in a timeless voice, the voice, that is, of a non-linear cosmology attributed to indigenous peoples by anthropologists, a voice in which timeless attitudes ("Salmon are seen by the Coast Salish peoples are beings similar to people but spiritually superior.") are asserted without regard for the NPOV fact that, statistically, contemporary Salish have about the same proportion of skeptics, scientists, evangelical Christians, the religiously indifferent, trendy new-agers and so forth as does the general population. Who knows if any of them believes that salmon are "spiritually superior"? Article not only fails to distinguish Salish attitudes and beliefs by era, it fails to distinguish among the distinct Salish peoples. This is like writing about "Europeans;" it can be done, but an NPOV article would point out that among Salish as among Europeans, different groups speak distinct languages, eat different foods, preserve the fish they catch in different ways and so forth. And it totally fails to encounter the fact that foodways, folkways, language and belief systems change over time. "Salish" itself is a concept and ethnonym imposed by Western culture on a a group of several distinctive indigenous peoples at a particular date. This article, in short, is neither NPOV nor is it encyclopedia-worthy. Moreover since using Wikipedia as a SOAPBOX to speak in an imagined and timeless "native" voice appears to be the intention of the article creator, it needs to be deleted. WP:NOTSOAPBOX.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:18, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:00, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I'm just not understanding the delete' rationale above. What is a POV about discussing the diet and sociology of a particular people? That clearly isn't a POV, that's just a fact. If there is sufficient information available, it is a perfectly reasonable thing to discuss. None of the above are policy reasons to delete, just WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The sources clearly show this is a notable subject. Keep. End of. JMWt (talk) 15:06, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While NPOV, SOAPBOX, and ESSAY may be an issue, AFD is not cleanup and that can be addressed by editing the article rather than deleting it. Nobody has presented an argument as to why it fails WP:GNG or anything else that is actually grounds for deletion instead of cleanup. Smartyllama (talk) 12:56, 18 April 2016 (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.