Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thule Society
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The result was Speedy keep/Nomination withdrawn. Would have been WP:SNOW keep, anyways. Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Thule Society
When I came across this, I was at a loss to decide which criteria to use. It is astounding to me that this can have survived so many years. It fails WP:V, WP:RS, WP:CITE and so for all we can tell is full of copyvios. The big edit of 2005-01-04 looks like a massive copy-paste by a now-untraceable AOL IP user. LeadSongDog (talk) 17:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy keep, AFD is not for cleanup. Did you see the Literature section in the article? This needs a {{citations missing}} or {{refimprove}} tag, not deletion. I see lots of coverage on Google News [1], Google Book [2], and Google Scholar [3]. --Pixelface (talk) 17:59, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy keep as above. --Carnildo (talk) 18:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
DeleteWithdrawn-see below, it was tagged for refimprove last May with no action! There's no indication any of the content can be cited to the entries in Literature LeadSongDog (talk) 18:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)- Speedy keep. This is notable, and, as the German version shows, there is extensive literature available. Cleanup, don't delete. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
- comment the (German) version actually has nine cites in thirty sentences. I couldn't comment on their quality, as they're in German, but it certainly is not anything like quantitatively sufficient for a controversial article. The fact that since 2002 nobody has bothered to clean up this article is strongly suggestive that it doesn't belong in article space.LeadSongDog (talk) 21:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy keep - badly needs cleanup, ideally by a German-speaking editor (sadly, although I am a Milwaukeean, I'm not that editor; but no way on earth it's a delete. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy keep. It's just untrue that there's been no cleanup. I corrected several blocks of text myself last year, and added eight Harvard-style inline citations to entries in the Literature section. I know that a good deal more could easily be sourced to the authoritative Goodrick-Clarke. The big 2005 edit was mostly sheer nonsense which has been worked out of the current text. No reason whatever to justify an AfD. Gnostrat (talk) 23:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
- Strong keep. As already said above, afds are not for cleanup. And also: Whereas there has been no work on the article itself, I have added a lot of (sourced!) material on the Thule society to the article Nazi occultism. Zara1709 (talk) 13:45, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy keep. When I came across this afd, I was at a loss at who may had proposed such a thing. The article is notable even though the proposer Nazifobia. The article at no point is pro-Nazi and clearly states that the organization may haven been diverted from its original objectives due to Nazi politics. The Thule Society backgrounds compels with occult secret societies history and is is congruent with some radical Nazi leaders behavior and thinking at the time (think Heinrich Himmler). I do agree that the article does not meet wikipedia standars, but as many people have stated afd are not for cleanup. --Legion fi (talk) 05:21, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
- comment - The above is a complete nonsequitur. What on earth is Nazifobia? Where did I say anything about Notability? I said it fails WP:V, WP:RS, WP:CITE and it still does. LeadSongDog (talk) 08:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry to policy-lecture, but which of the reasons for deletion do you think justify this deletion request? And why does WP:ATD (point 1) not apply? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
- The most obvious is Article for which all attempts to find reliable sources to verify it have failed. I've gone through to mark citations needed. This should illustrate just how far gone it is.LeadSongDog (talk) 09:26, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
- But that is obviously wrong. There are reliable sources. They are not (yet, I hope) properly used in the article, but the existence of them is not even under discussion - or at least that is my impression. Indeed, there are several good sources listed in the literature section of the current article. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:49, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
- How do we know they are the sources if they are not cited? Look through the edit history to see how much of the article predates the addition of those "Literature" entries. Still, if some people want to take on the task of fixing it, I'm prepared to withdraw the AfD.LeadSongDog (talk) 10:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
- The requirement is not for the current article to be good, but for the topic to have reliable sources. It has. There is not doubt about it. What remains is to improve the article. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
- Does "Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed." strike a familiar note? You can find it at WP:V. That doesn't mean just listing some possible sources, it means citing the RS upon which each of the assertions in the article is made.LeadSongDog (talk) 10:32, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
- That is irrelevant. The fact that not all statements are sourced is grounds for improvement. What is your case for deletion? "Article for which all attempts to find reliable sources to verify it have failed", well please note the "all attempts". Every source in the Literature section is cited in the text, some with multiple page references, so clearly "all attempts" have not failed. Would you mind explaining how you arrived at your decision to AfD this article when you admit you hadn't even read it? Sorry, I forgot: you went for AfD after failing to have it deleted as six years of Nazi-promoting spam. Gnostrat (talk) 04:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
- Of course I tried speedy first. I thought and still think it should be trashed as soon as possible. Perhaps my use of the English idiom "even without looking at" was too subtle. It does not mean I didn't read it, rather that the argument stands irrespective of considering the content of the article. In fact, I've not only read the article, I've read many versions of it through the edit history back to 2002, hence the "six years" reference. What I've not found is any real sign of anyone stepping up to fix it. Perhaps one of you would like to show some repair effort on the article. My offer to withdraw still stands. I took the trouble to mark all the uncited assertions and was accused by Carnildo of making a wp:point for the trouble. Fine, I'll let [the revert] stand. It's there for your use if you like. But please acknowledge that the vast majority of what is stated in the article is NOT referenced whether or not it hypothetically could be. Having sources for a half dozen assertions doesn't come remotely close to enabling the reader to WP:V everything in the article. That's why a six-year-old article is still Start class despite having structure and images. LeadSongDog (talk) 14:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
- The question is whether the Thule Society is a viable topic for Wikipedia. Many articles are in poor shape for years. The Human skeleton article had no citations for over 4 1/2 years[4]. Please read WP:NOEFFORT and then consider "stepping up" yourself. --Pixelface (talk) 19:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, that was worth refreshing my memory on. No, I will not be the first one stepping up to fix an article that I've already argued is in all probability beyond repair and of little intrinsic value. However, I will withdraw (for now) the AfD in the spirit of building WP:CONCENSUS and I encourage all those above to take the opportunity to prove me wrong. I'll keep a watch on it, and if someone finds a way to instill some value in the article, I'll eat my words and contribute.LeadSongDog (talk) 21:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
- "this looks like a six year experiment in unreferenced free speech for Nazis". You put that last sentence in a html comment in the Thule Society article. Only someone with strong feelings agaist (close to fobia) Nazism could consider that the article is a free speech for Nazis. I'm sorry if the world Nazifobia wasn't the correct one to use, but it is clear that you are nominating this article for AfD because you can't understand that someone who isn't a Nazi may be interested in it. I repeat myself, I agree that the article is in a bad shape, but that is no reason to delete it. I will try to heavily search for reliable sources, add them if I can, or renominate it for AfD. --Legion fi (talk) 05:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, that was worth refreshing my memory on. No, I will not be the first one stepping up to fix an article that I've already argued is in all probability beyond repair and of little intrinsic value. However, I will withdraw (for now) the AfD in the spirit of building WP:CONCENSUS and I encourage all those above to take the opportunity to prove me wrong. I'll keep a watch on it, and if someone finds a way to instill some value in the article, I'll eat my words and contribute.LeadSongDog (talk) 21:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
- The question is whether the Thule Society is a viable topic for Wikipedia. Many articles are in poor shape for years. The Human skeleton article had no citations for over 4 1/2 years[4]. Please read WP:NOEFFORT and then consider "stepping up" yourself. --Pixelface (talk) 19:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
- Of course I tried speedy first. I thought and still think it should be trashed as soon as possible. Perhaps my use of the English idiom "even without looking at" was too subtle. It does not mean I didn't read it, rather that the argument stands irrespective of considering the content of the article. In fact, I've not only read the article, I've read many versions of it through the edit history back to 2002, hence the "six years" reference. What I've not found is any real sign of anyone stepping up to fix it. Perhaps one of you would like to show some repair effort on the article. My offer to withdraw still stands. I took the trouble to mark all the uncited assertions and was accused by Carnildo of making a wp:point for the trouble. Fine, I'll let [the revert] stand. It's there for your use if you like. But please acknowledge that the vast majority of what is stated in the article is NOT referenced whether or not it hypothetically could be. Having sources for a half dozen assertions doesn't come remotely close to enabling the reader to WP:V everything in the article. That's why a six-year-old article is still Start class despite having structure and images. LeadSongDog (talk) 14:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
- That is irrelevant. The fact that not all statements are sourced is grounds for improvement. What is your case for deletion? "Article for which all attempts to find reliable sources to verify it have failed", well please note the "all attempts". Every source in the Literature section is cited in the text, some with multiple page references, so clearly "all attempts" have not failed. Would you mind explaining how you arrived at your decision to AfD this article when you admit you hadn't even read it? Sorry, I forgot: you went for AfD after failing to have it deleted as six years of Nazi-promoting spam. Gnostrat (talk) 04:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
- Does "Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed." strike a familiar note? You can find it at WP:V. That doesn't mean just listing some possible sources, it means citing the RS upon which each of the assertions in the article is made.LeadSongDog (talk) 10:32, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
- The requirement is not for the current article to be good, but for the topic to have reliable sources. It has. There is not doubt about it. What remains is to improve the article. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
- How do we know they are the sources if they are not cited? Look through the edit history to see how much of the article predates the addition of those "Literature" entries. Still, if some people want to take on the task of fixing it, I'm prepared to withdraw the AfD.LeadSongDog (talk) 10:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
- But that is obviously wrong. There are reliable sources. They are not (yet, I hope) properly used in the article, but the existence of them is not even under discussion - or at least that is my impression. Indeed, there are several good sources listed in the literature section of the current article. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:49, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
- The most obvious is Article for which all attempts to find reliable sources to verify it have failed. I've gone through to mark citations needed. This should illustrate just how far gone it is.LeadSongDog (talk) 09:26, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry to policy-lecture, but which of the reasons for deletion do you think justify this deletion request? And why does WP:ATD (point 1) not apply? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
- comment - The above is a complete nonsequitur. What on earth is Nazifobia? Where did I say anything about Notability? I said it fails WP:V, WP:RS, WP:CITE and it still does. LeadSongDog (talk) 08:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- 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.
