Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tabiti

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Whether this article should be redirected/merged elsewhere is an issue that can be discussed on the talk page. Randykitty (talk) 11:51, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tabiti[edit]

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

Tabiti (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)

The article was restored by Tabiti and Dashte Qom, socks of user:Tirgil34, by banned user Falconfly. Article is largely a copy of the essay "On the Scythian Pantheon" by amateur writer Carlos Albuquerque. The chief source, Argimpasa – Scythian goddess, patroness of shamans: a comparison of historical, archaeological, linguistic and ethnographic data by Pan-Turkic pseudo-scholar Zaur Hasanov is unreliable. 1l2l3k (talk) 16:17, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep easily passes WP:GNG per [1][2][3]. I am rather inclined to suggest procedural close because no policy based reasoning has been provided and there was clear failure of WP:BEFORE. The months later block of Falconfly is irrelevant because he was an independent editor. I am not going to count the false accuations of sock puppetry made by the nominator because User:Tabiti was investigated and he was never found to be a sock of Tirgil34 or anyone else.[4] Why you mentioned Dashte Qom when he never edited the page? I would urge 1l2l3k to retract the false accusations because they constitute personal attacks and I would also urge Tarage to reconsider their vote. Orientls (talk) 03:00, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Is this edit summary, or this, made by Krakkos, also a personal attack, according to you? WP:Deny exists for a reason. Also, it's good to read the history of the article, which I do, when I patrol. I do not exclude that GNG may exist. But the mere fact that this person, who is such a nuisance to wiki created this article makes me want to have a community discussion. I don't care if I am on the wrong side, as long as I involve some discussion around keep or delete an article from a banned user. --1l2l3k (talk) 03:05, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@1l2l3k:  You are responsible for every accusation you make.  There is no sensible justification in making false accusations only because other editor has also made them. This is not any "article from a  banned user".  Opinion of Krakkos is not more official than that of SPI clerk and checkuser.[5] The article creator (Tabiti) is not a sock of anyone but an editor with a clean block log.  G5 would be declined even if he was a sock. There is no policy which suggests us that article should be deleted if it was edited by an editor (Falconfly) who got banned way after editing the article. WP:DENY is completely irrelevant because article was not created by a sock nor Falconfly was evading his existing block. You should retract the false accusations. Orientls (talk) 03:24, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, and don't ping me again. --Tarage (talk) 04:13, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Besides the arguments laid forth by Orientls, A) the argument put forth is just plain not correct (compare this the cited article), B) most information is actually lifted by sources cited within the article, such as Esther Jacobson's The Deer Goddess of Ancient Siberia: A Study in the Ecology of Belief. Case closed, this is pure spite by two paranoid dunderheads someone who has a history of spiteful behaviour. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amangazo (talk • contribs) 12:48, 28 November 2018 (UTC) — Amangazo (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Falconfly (talk · contribs). [reply]
  • Redirect: The article was created by Tabiti, who was clearly a Tirgil sock.[6][7] The reason Tabiti has never been blocked is that he was stale, not because any investigation proven his innocence.[8] Normally, an article created by a sock qualifies for deletion as per WP:G5. I would however prefer to keep the edit history in order to preserve evidence on Tirgil. The current version of the article was created by Falconfly, who has been banned for his problematic editing. As the nominator states, his version is largely based on the essay "On the Scythian Pantheon" by amateur writer Carlos Albuquerque, and the chief source is Argimpasa – Scythian goddess, patroness of shamans: a comparison of historical, archaeological, linguistic and ethnographic data by the dubious Azeri author Zaur Hasanov. Until someone can write a quality article on this subject, it serves better as a redirect to Scythian religion. Note that Amangazo, who voted above, is clearly a sock of Falconfly. Krakkos (talk) 15:47, 28 November 2018 (UTC) Krakkos (talk) 15:47, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Ivanvector: since you have visited this page, can you consider taking action against these range of false accusations of sock puppetry? The creator of the article was not a sock because an SPI clerk and a CU didn't agreed when Krakkos opened SPI against the creator[9] and Krakkos has been warned by Bbb23 to stop falsely accusing others of being a sock of Tigril34,[10][11] yet he is continuing this disruption by calling the creator a sock of Tirgil34. Orientls (talk) 16:09, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whether or not the creator of this article was abusing multiple accounts is irrelevant. It's three years later, G5 does not apply here. Please discuss the merits of the article without referring to who did what in the distant past. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:17, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The issue that is relevant here is the lack of reliable sources. Currently all of the sources reference are either not available to english language readers or are obscure authors that do not appear to reflect mainstream thinking on the issue. The article also seems to be, in parts, directly quoting the cited text without appropriate reference or quotation marks. Back of the napkin here, but it looks like 60-70% of the article is directly lifted from the sources. That makes this less of an encyclopedic article and more of a gathering of quotes. Squatch347 (talk) 17:31, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Squatch347: You should really familiarize yourself with WP:DISCUSSAFD and WP:RS. Article is mostly sourced to sources published by Oxford University Press, Brill Publishers, both are high quality WP:RS. Sources don't necessarily have to be written in English per WP:NOENG. There are gazillions reliable sources in English language that have significantly covered "Tabiti", few of which you can find in my initial comment here. Read WP:N and WP:GNG to know what I am exactly talking about. Orientls (talk) 03:44, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
True, but Indo-European Poetry and Myth (Oxford University Press) is used for a minor throw away point at the end and it isn't clear at all if the source actually says what is claimed (given a quick perusal and the original editors' penchant for doing exactly that). Its only other use is for the Etymology which is somewhat supports on page 267, but that paragraph would need to be editted to fit that actual material in the source.
The same can be said for the last Brill published source, Etymological Dictionary of the Iranian Verb, it's addition is solely for a throw away point about other religions, not about Tabiti. It's use in the Etymology section is even less clear, though I'll need some more time to find where this might have been referenced in it (It's why I always encouraged Falconfly to properly cite his references, to no avail). If you have a page number, that would help a lot.
The first Brill source is the same story. It does cover the Hittite relationship, but that isn't the thrust of this article. It doesn't seem to support the claim in the lede.
So that leaves us with two extremely questionable sources, a possibly unsourced lede, and the largest individual section with no references.
Thanks for the additional references, those could help greatly. The first source definitely would be useful, but I don't think it can stand on its own McFarland is an activist publisher and qualifies as WP:FRINGE or at least is openly and actively trying to not qualify as mainstream. The second source is spot on and is published by Brill, which is great. What sections of the article do you propose it covers? It definitely doesn't seem to cover everything. The third source doesn't seem to be referencing any specific content. Can you specify exactly what in that text supports what in the article?
Squatch347 (talk) 15:08, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
McFarland is an academic publisher and AfD is not about discussing content issues. Read WP:ATA and WP:ATD. This discussion should only focus whether the subject (Tabiti) meets WP:N or not. Orientls (talk) 04:42, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'll note that in the wiki article you linked it describes McFarland's academic publishing as in Baseball, Information Ethics, and Maritime review. IE not anything related to this topic. Thus this is an independently published book, not a scholarly work. What's more, we have to consider more than just if it came from a legitimate publisher. It is important that the article represent mainstream ideas on the subject at hand, not WP:FRINGE. I'm not sure we have that here, certainly we can't be confident that we do without additional mainstream sources. Currently, we have two questionable sources and one legitimate publisher who (according to our wiki page) specializes in niche subjects.
As for the articles deletion, I'll note that the only relevant thrust of your argument runs afoul of WP:MUSTBESOURCES. If there are sources, then properly cite them and flush out the article. As it stands now this is just a stub with the single most relevant piece being a completely uncited section about Herodotus.
Side Note: I've added a citation needed reference to Kurgan figures first and second sentences. The third sentence is referenced in the linked articles, but neither of them reference anything like what the first sentence is describing that I can find. I'm open if someone can show it to me, but if not, I recommend we strike the section.
Squatch347 (talk) 15:16, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
McFarland is a reliable academic publisher, no matter what they publish. The article no where says it is academic only for those three fields. You are making no attempts to understand what is a WP:RS or what is the purpose of WP:AFD and now you are trying to misrepresent my comments which makes your own case worse. My comments don't "runs afoul of WP:MUSTBESOURCES", because I have provided enough reliable sources in my initial comment which easily proves that the subject is passing WP:GNG. Where as you are using WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument since you haven't even refuted the fact that vast amount of reliable sources significantly covers the subject. Orientls (talk) 15:49, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, if you have the sources then write the article. I'm not saying that it needs to be deleted for notability, I'm saying it needs to be deleted because it has no content from reputable sources. If there is reputable content (and I believe there is) then let's re-write the article to reflect that content. But we can't keep the current fringe info under the justification that there exists mainstream info somewhere. Squatch347 (talk) 15:57, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is not fringe only because you disagree. Orientls (talk) 05:09, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment it appears the only remotely-contemporaneous reference is Herodotus. Many of the other references are misrepresented in the article; "The Deer Goddess of Ancient Siberia: A Study in the Ecology of Belief" doesn't claim that she was a solar deer goddess and "Indo-European Poetry and Myth" doesn't claim she was the original fire goddess among Indo-Iranians. As a result I'm removing the entire "interpretations" section. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:35, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:01, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone is arguing that the subject isn't notable. The question is about the article itself. It is, in its current form, essentially a copy/paste from a fringe author and doesn't represent mainstream views. If we remove uncited materials and fringe authors there is essentially nothing left in the article aside from Tabiti's name. No doubt someone could write a valid article about the Scythian goddess, but this isn't it. Squatch347 (talk) 15:57, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's where you don't understand the purpose of AfD when yourself say that you "don't think anyone is arguing that the subject isn't notable". The purpose of bringing the article to AfD is all about arguing whether the subject is notable or not. Orientls (talk) 16:02, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'd recommend a quick perusal of WP:DEL-REASON, an article can be deleted for a whole host of reasons that aren't just notability. Look, the bottom line is that absent the questionable sources and citations needed this is a blank page. Squatch347 (talk) 16:14, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What you see in WP:DEL-REASON is almost completely handled by WP:SPEEDY deletions. AfD serves no purpose other than discussing notability of the subject. Orientls (talk) 05:09, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if you strip the bloat from an obscure source, the subject is left with very little, and much of this is "we assume", it is theorized", etc... There's nothing here, use the name as a search term to get to Scythian religion. MarkAQuinn (talk) 16:11, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, am i looking at the same article? there are 4 references presently cited in the article, (let alone the sources i have listed above), not, "an [one] obscure source", this afd reminds me of WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:33, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There are four references, correct. Two are questionable Fringe (as noted by several earlier). Two are reputable sources, but only cover information unrelated to the article. IE X is similar to... and the citation only covers the latter info, nothing about how it is similar or Tabiti directly. If you look at the article and remove the citation needed sections and remove the non-Tabiti related comparisons the article is, essentially a blank page. Squatch347 (talk) 16:37, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
so now it is 2 fringes... if you believe that is the case, and the other 2 sources dont directly address the subject be bold and remove them, after all, "Article content does not determine notability" (of course, another editor can also add the sources i provided above:)). Coolabahapple (talk) 22:46, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:38, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 22:51, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clearly meets WP:GNG. There appear to be more reliable sources which could be added, and possibly more information, but the article as it now stands provides basic info. RebeccaGreen (talk) 00:28, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the information in Tabiti is exactly the same as information on Tabiti in the Scythian religion article, except for the beginning that states she is queen of the gods and equated by Herodotus with Hestia. References in Tabiti are already in Scythian religion. Aurornisxui (talk) 20:50, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep agree per RebeccaGreen and IMO, Clearly meets WP:GNG. 65.18.124.149 (talk) 22:33, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments, NOTE to closing admin: There appears to be valid reasoning for merging (#1 and #2). Although there is consensus to keep a source provided on the article states, "In the Scythian tongue, Hestia is called Tabiti". Hestia already is included on Wikipedia and the content of this article should be appropriate covered under an etymology and other appropriate section of that article or Scythian religion (per above) to negate duplicate coverage. Claims of Wikipedia:Deny are unfounded and a fork or duplicate coverage, no matter the sources or "keep !votes, does not give valid grounds for keeping. If kept I am sure this will be a perennial issue at AFD. Otr500 (talk) 16:25, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per sources provided above. Rest of the arguments are simply WP:ATADD. desmay (talk) 01:32, 17 December 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tabiti&oldid=874141726"