Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hans the Werewolf (2nd nomination)

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 as per consensus and no calls for deletion beyond the nominator. Non-admin closure. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hans the Werewolf[edit]

Renominating for deletion, since problems discussed at last AFD (closed with no consensus, with some blatant WP:ILIKEIT votes, etc.) have not been fixed. Article only has two sources: the Swedish one which is being used for most of the info, including a number of claims that sound controversial based upon my knowledge of werewolf folklore and witch trial history that are presented as facts just because this Swedish author claimed them; and an English one, which only discusses this case in the most trivial of ways (based upon a person at the previous AFD looking into it, it's just a page or page and a half or so of text in a 477 page book specifically devoted to just Estonian werewolf and poisoning cases!). This case is not notable as far as werewolf cases go, but even as far as Estonian incidents go it's apparently just a footnote. It's not mentioned in our article of Werewolf or any other article here on related topics, so no independent person thought it was notable enough to discuss on those topics. The bottom line is this is just essentially a single-sourced incident (source being in Swedish who knows how much it even takes up in that book), while we need multiple, independent, reliable sources giving non-trivial coverage of the topic in a way that would indicate notability enough for an encyclopedia article in order for us to have a page devoted to it at Wikipedia. This fails those standards quite dramatically. Proving that the event happened is not the same as demonstrating that it is notable, This should be deleted, and there's nothing there of any value to merge or any reason to redirect. DreamGuy (talk) 15:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I will make the same points here that I made regarding the other article by User:Aciram that you nominated for deletion. Just because one of the references is in a Swedish book does not mean that the article should be deleted. Foreign language references are considered perfectly valid for Wikipedia. We have countless articles that are completely unsourced, but that alone doesn't mean that they should be deleted. Furthermore, it doesn't surprise me that there are no English sources, given that it took place in Estonia, a country whose history is not as well studied in the English-speaking world as others are. Furthermore, User:Aciram has made many excellent contributions and his/her work has been consistently of good quality. S/he is clearly an intelligent and thoughtful editor and I'm quite sure that s/he is capable of determining whether or not the book s/he used is reliable or not. Asarelah (talk) 17:54, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it didnt take place in Sweden, it took place in Estonia. Although this in no way invalidates your point, such inaccuracies in discussions bug me. Dlabtot (talk) 18:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my mistake. I'll fix that. I actually copied and pasted my argument from a different AfD discussion about another article by User:Aciram. I'll try to be more careful in the future. Asarelah (talk) 18:50, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The fact that it's Swedish isn't an issue, it's that it's the only (allegedly -- as it's unconfirmed) source that covers it in a nontrivial way. Wikipedia articles need multiple nontrivial accounts. You're whole comment is completely irrelevant to this discussion. If you think it should be kept, give reasons why the topic meets our standards. DreamGuy (talk) 21:21, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is not, in fact, single sourced - (I find the assertion that a page and a half in Early Modern European Witchcraft: Centres and Peripheries constitutes a trivial mention to be fairly ludicrous), and arguments against using foreign-language sources carry no weight. see WP:NONENG. Dlabtot (talk) 18:27, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: That's ludicrous to you? You clearly have a bizarre idea of what count as nontrivial then. And there were no arguments about foreign language sources, just noting that it cannot be confirmed what that book actually says. DreamGuy (talk) 21:21, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What about assuming good faith? We have no reason to believe that User:Aciram would put false material up. Also, how exactly do you define trivial vs. nontrivial? Asarelah (talk) 23:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well that simply isn't true. It can be confirmed by anyone who can read Swedish. You may not be able to confirm it, but the fact that you can't read Swedish is irrelevant to this discussion. Dlabtot (talk) 21:44, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What simply isn't true? For my first point, the WP:GNG demands that the source cover it in detail: i.e. non-trivially. A page and a half in a book -- if it is even that long, all we know is that it crosses one page break, so it may be only one sentence for all we know -- is nondetailed coverage. And of course if I can read Swedish is irrelevant, but even if we accept that that book covers it nontrivially, which we simply do not know (which was a side point), that would still only be ONE source, and we need multiple sources. So it fails and needs to be deleted. DreamGuy (talk) 22:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with prejudice against renomination. A foreign source might be an issue if the matter or translation is controversial per WP:AD. Is this controversial? The account seems believable and scholarly; it's certainly not WP:FRINGE.--AuthorityTam (talk) 21:05, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Again, the fact that it's Swedish isn't an issue, WP:AD is for inclusion in another article (in which case it's still controversial anyway, as it makes some bizarre claims against what known experts have said), not for having a full article unto itself. If that's your argument for Keep, you don't have an argument. DreamGuy (talk) 21:21, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 00:17, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 00:17, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 00:17, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, although as the creator, I am unsure wether it is my place to comment. This case is presented as a representative example in the descripition in how witch trials in present-day Estonia was combined with werewoolf-trials. That should be quite relevant. The fact that this is not mentioned in the article of werewolves, would mean nothing more but that no one have been interested in writing about the combined witch-and werewolf-trials in Estonia. I have often wondered, if the article should perhaps change name to "The witch-werewolf trials" (some one else could perhaps think of a more elegant title than that I imagine!) or something similar to handle this special subject, rather than to base it on a representative case. To describe the unique, as I have understood it, mix of werewoolf- and witch trials in Estonia with a representative example, as this case is presented to be, was my intention with this article. --Aciram (talk) 09:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ - This article fails WP:N. Nobody has even seriously contested this fact. Aserelah, you are taking this matter far too personally, nobody is indicting Aciram or their contributions, and just because the article an editor created is deleted, that doesn't mean the editor is bad. Also, Wikipedia's policy is verifiability, not truth, so when someone asks for more references please do not accuse them of calling someone else a liar or asking them to assume good faith, that is not constructive. Dlabtrot, the article is single-sourced; the second reference for the article is for a totally different werewolf legend. This article isn't "Werewolves in Estonia", it's an article about a specific werewolf trial, and there is only one reference for that trial. If there are more sources, English or not, please reference them; it doesn't matter if they are Swedish, English, or ancient Sumerian as long as we know what those sources say, as long as the sources are reliable, and as long as the sources cover the subject in a non-trivial manner. AuthorityTam, it is not enough for an article to "seem" scholarly, without proper references the article fails. Frankly, I like the article as much as you people do (werewolves are certainly cool, historical ones are even cooler) but an AfD should be about unbiased, reasoned discussion, not opinions and accusations of bad faith. -- Atama ^chat 22:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal - I have an idea that might please everyone. Aciram, you said you wondered about a name change for the article, and I think that if you could expand the scope of the article to include werewolf and witch trials in Estonia in general that the article could have potential. You're the expert, are there other sources you could provide for other trials, or for trials in general? If you could find them, and provide them, then perhaps the article can be expanded. DreamGuy, would you agree that if the article's scope was expanded and that if more references could be provided that the article would satisfy WP:N? Of course it would depend on the references, but I would think another one or two along the lines of the "Early Modern European Witchcraft" source would suffice. Does anyone object to this? -- Atama ^chat 22:32, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm changing my suggestion because I believe that expanding the scope to involve multiple werewoolf-witch trials rather than one will allow for more references to show notability. In fact one of the two references for this article is regarding a different werewoolf incident than Hans, and helps provide evidence of notability toward the phenomenon in general. -- Atama ^chat 16:19, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CommentI do not object renaming the article to make it be about the phenomena with examples of it, if is necessary to do so. I suppose, that there will be easier for everyone to find sources, if the article is about the phenomena in itself. Be in mind, that I wrote this article a long time ago, and therefore I do not feel that I can do this before consulting the sources again and double-check them. I seem to remember more sources, especially about the werewoolf-witch trials in general. The problem is that I have so little time, and it would be a shame if they are deleted because of that. But I will truly do my best to take the time this week. --Aciram (talk) 11:24, 28 June 2009 (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.