Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paiute

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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 12:37, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Paiute[edit]

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

This article has no actual unique content that belongs. Since "Paiute" is nothing more than a cover term for linguistically different, geographically non-continguous, and culturally different groups that were never unified historically, it should be nothing more than a disambiguation page for Northern Paiute people and Southern Paiute people. All information that exists on this page should be transferred to one of those subordinate articles. Taivo (talk) 20:19, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:20, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting off the distinct tribe and making this article more of a disambiguation page does notw require deletion. That is an editing issue. Certainly sources and English language names have lumped paoute subjects together. See the disambiguation page for example. Clarifications would be welcome if done consiatent with reliable sources. But removal of a soirced ethnobotany section is concerning. Splitting off the dostinct tribes requires maintining the editorial history to comply with licensing. FloridaArmy (talk) 03:57, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:18, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "ethnobotany" section in the article. And even if there were, the ethnobotany of the two groups is distinct with distinct and easily distinguishable sources. If an "ethnobotany of the Great Basin" article were to exist, it could not without a major part of it covering the Shoshoni who were never part of the "Paiute" nomenclature. There is no such thing as "Paiute ethnobotany" as there is no such thing as "Paiute (anything)" that doesn't also include much that was never "Paiute". --Taivo (talk) 16:00, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You removed the ethnobotany section see here. FloridaArmy (talk) 16:06, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, right, I had forgotten that. That only applied to the Northern Paiute and since only one plant was included, it was horribly inadequate. Such information should be at Northern Paiute. Their food supply was far larger than just one root. --Taivo (talk) 16:20, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Did you add the cited content to the Northern Paiute article when you removed it from this one? Expanding the coverage of diet would be great. FloridaArmy (talk) 12:44, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the deleted material? I'm a specialist in the Great Basin tribes and that comment is the equivalent of saying, "Americans eat grilled cheese sandwiches." Without an all-inclusive description of Northern Paiute diet and food gathering, that is a useless comment. It may or may not be at Northern Paiute, but if that's all there is, then it needs to be deleted as misrepresentative. --Taivo (talk) 13:23, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The deleted content was: "===Ethnobotany===

They use the roots of Sagittaria cuneata for food. ref Fowler, Catherine S., 1989, Willards Z. Park's Ethnographic Notes on the Northern Paiute of Western Nevada 1933-1940, Salt Lake City. University of Utah Press, page 44 /ref". I would be shocked if grilled cheese was not mentioned in the article on U.S. cuisine. FloridaArmy (talk) 13:38, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey friend Taivo, we're glad you're a subject matter expert and stuff, but that kind of announcement carries no weight in a deletion discussion, see e.g. WP:CRED. Just like every other user, you're expected to give valid reasons for deletion per WP policy. What you've done here is basically stated that this article is nonsense and that we should believe you even though you're anonymous and delete it even though there are hundreds of RS that discuss the concept. That's just not how things happen in WPland, and rightly so. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 14:23, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Szzuk (talk) 11:36, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just to reiterate, deletion isn't needed and would be inappropriate. Splitting off the article requires maintaining the editing history for attribution. The term paiute is also a longstanding if problematic term, some explanation along with disambiguating to the respective tribal groups would be useful. FloridaArmy (talk) 12:44, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Regardless of the soundness of noms arguments, none of them are a reason for deletion. Clearly, obviously, the concept of Paiute meets the GNG just from the sources in the article. This GScholar search provides even more evidence, if such is needed. We don't delete articles because they have wrong stuff in them even though it may be easier to do so. We fix the wrong stuff. If nom has sources for their POV, they ought to get to work putting that info in the article rather than trying to have it deleted out of process. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 13:34, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is an topic that improperly combines two topics. There is no such thing as "Paiute". The information that is in this article should be in other places. Doing a Google Scholar search for "Paiute" is ridiculous. --Taivo (talk) 14:24, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is a Google Scholar search for the term that the article is about more ridiculous than nominating an article for deletion without understanding the Wikipedia:Deletion policy? Probably not, I'd say. Maybe you should withdraw this nomination until you can come up with actual policy-based reasons. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 14:35, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The reason is very simple. There is no topic for "Paiute". Every reference in reliable sources is specifically to Northern Paiute or Southern Paiute. There is no common reference point to non-contiguous communities. That's why a Google search is meaningless. Read the RS's. Read the article, actually: the entire content is segregated into different sections depending on whether Northern Paiute, Southern Paiute, or Owens Valley Paiute is being discussed. There is simply no common ground. It's the opposite of a content fork, which is a false division of topic into separate articles. This is a content merge, where disparate content is falsely merged into a single article. --Taivo (talk) 15:52, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed per User:FloridaArmy's comment. --Taivo (talk) 16:08, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 March 31. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:22, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for lack of any Wikipedial justification for deletion (also for the sake of a bunch of Western movies). Even the nominator agrees that at least a dab page should exist. The term is bandied about by non-experts, so some explanation is necessary. (They don't call it the Northern Paiute War.) This is a matter for editing, not deletion. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:20, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I have already edited the appropriate articles. Paiute is now a disambiguation page with appropriate explanation. Content has been transferred to Northern Paiute, Southern Paiute, and Mono people. I probably should have transferred the content to Northern Paiute people and Southern Paiute people, but someone with more skill at moving over redirects can easily fix them. --Taivo (talk) 03:28, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Close this discussion. I don't have either the curiosity or time to either locate or read the Wikipedia fine print, so one of the skilled Wikilawyers can close this. The matter is concluded. --Taivo (talk) 03:31, 1 April 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.