Pretty Nose – closure endorsed. This was a review of an unusual deletion discussion. It raised many interesting questions about the exact nature of notability and how it overlaps with the verifiability policy, and ultimately ended up providing a fairly compelling and rare example of where exceptions to the written notability guidelines do lie, while remaining within the requirements of verifiability. The discussion itself was clearly numerically in favour of keep and, ultimately, was closed as such, and most participants here have agreed with Barkeep49's justification of it. The DRV consensus is clear that this was a good read of the discussion, despite the irregularities regarding who was closing it, and potentially some ongoing disputes around the lead section and content. ~ mazcatalk20:54, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
The closer’s rationale was: “For a discussion that by headcount is overwhelmingly keep this discussion brings up rather complex and thoughtfully advanced questions about notability. Those who feel this topic should be deleted rely on our standard measures ways of interpreting notability including the General Notability Guideline and argue, sometimes with a great deal of lament, that this subject simply does not meet our standards. For those feel this is a topic that should be kept the argument is not so straightforward but essentially suggests when looking at the totality of the information that notability has been established.
In cases like these the first question to ask is whether there is verifiable information about this topic, as notability requires evidence. While sources were presented which do not have information about this topic, and some general discussion about what place oral histories have in verifiability, there is a consensus that the information in the article is verifiable. The crux of the discussion therefore is not whether verifiable information exists, but whether enough such information exists and whether what exists adds up to enough that a standalone article is appropriate coverage of the topic. Ultimately the consensus of editors weigh in is that the answer to both those questions is yes and as such we have a consensus to keep the article.”
The closer was incorrect in concluding that: (i) the information in the article is verifiable; and (ii) that sufficient verifiable information exists to establish notability. The subject lacks SIGCOV in multiple RS sufficient to meet WP:GNG and we lack even the most basic biographical detail such as date of birth, date of death and other major claims about her, these include: (a) which tribe she belonged to; (b) whether or not she was a War Chief, an assertion only made by one of her relatives; and (c) her claimed involvement in the Battle of Little Bighorn, when she isn’t mentioned in 14 books on the subject. The discussion was also characterized by actual or implied charges of racism by some of the Keep voters.
The closing review was started by User:DGG, who due to personal reasons was unable to complete the review before it was taken over by the closer. On the talk page: [[1]] DGG stated that they would have moved the page to draft for repurposing as "Photograph of Pretty Nose" while another proposal was that the page should be a redirect to Laton Alton Huffman, the photographer who took her photo with any relevant detail included there, either of those would be an acceptable outcome. Instead the page has been kept and the dubious claims regarding Pretty Nose as a War Chief have been moved into the lede. Mztourist (talk) 05:48, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"This is a featured picture, which means that members of the community have identified it as one of the finest images on the English Wikipedia, adding significantly to its accompanying article".
Endorse The close was a reasonable summary of the discussion. The only procedural irregularity was DGG's close that didn't happen. That was quite odd; I can't remember ever seeing anything like that before at AfD. They were given over a week in which to get it done and the delay was becoming disruptive as it was generating a discussion within the discussion. Kudos to Barkeep49 for their courage in stepping up to resolve the matter. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:06, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse'I urged Mztourist not to bring this DRV. Though I was rather annoyed at Barkeep for impatience, it's more my fault than his. Anyway, though I would have closed differently, but the close was not unreasonable. What uis unreasonable is some of the claims made int he article, particularly in the lede sentence. The designation of her as a :war chief is based on what her grandson remembers from seing whart she was wearing when he visited her whenshe was 102 years old. If we needed an example to ilustrate the critical approach needed to take account of oral tradition, this would be a prime example--and it applies not just to the use of oral sources but to the proper use of primary sources generally. DGG ( talk ) 07:15, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse what I thought was a an excellent closing rationale. If there is no (or no substantial) verifiable information on the topic of an article then the article should be deleted. But nobody at AFD argued that case (not even the DRV nominator here) so the AFD-closer was right rule out lack of verifiability as a reason for deletion. The arguments for deletion were entirely based on notability and those are guidelines intended to help us assess carefully whether it is appropriate to have an article on the topic in question. WP:GNG are not rules to be enforced against editors' thoughtful opinion. We quite often do not have specific details of a person's date of birth or death, etc, and these are also not reasons for deletion. Of course there can now be talk page discussion about a change of title, rewording the contents regarding fact or opinion, redirecting and so on. Thincat (talk) 09:13, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - It’s been nominated for deletion twice and improved/clarified enough this last time that it’s so much improved that neither the intended closer nor the actual closer (tell me this is a weird circumstance, folks!) would have deleted it. Pretty Nose is the subject of that photograph and that combined with biographical info we know from the Al Jazeera article has her meeting WP:GNG. If Mztourist is talking about me, I’d like to clarify something and have them edit their deletion review rationale to be correct. I’m the one who suggested a possible merge to the photographer (as a supplement to my keep/alternative to deletion and only a few hours after seeing the Black Coyote article deleted in spite of improvements and a majority of keep votes); I never said Pretty Nose should be a redirect. See 1. I believe preserving a better option than deletion or a draft that’ll languish where no one can read about it, especially when it is such a common photograph and people should be able to learn it. I would be fine with renaming the article for the photograph as DGG said as that is arguably what Pretty Nose will be forever known for, but that wasn’t brought up in the discussion. In short, there is enough here that it should not be deleted or a draft but an article of whatever kind. Regarding reasons why folks want the article deleted, the provenance of “war chief” and the Little Bighorn information is being scrutinized. It’s neither rightfully or wrongfully so. That can be (and possibly currently is) covered in the article with “she was, according to her descendant…” Regarding the subject not being in 14 of the books about the Little Big Horn: I don’t know whether she will or won’t be in the plethora of other books or countless other articles about it, but I do believe that with Mark Soldier Wolf coming forward with their family story, she is likely to be in subsequent books about these topics. Not saying to keep based on this, but let’s recognize the study of history as being organic and not stagnant. Note that the result was not delete with the three people who were to or did close in over two times it was nominated for deletion. It should not be deleted now. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 11:18, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse The Keep arguments are based in guideline, there are many reliable sources. The closer had to make a tough choice, they made it, there is nothing wrong with it. SIGCOV is and always has been highly subjective (what is "significant" other than significant enough to be notable, a circular definition intentionally). Mztourist's requirement for "basic biographical details" is not based in policy or guideline, there are many people from ancient history of which we know almost nothing except for their writings. Post-close discussions by DGG are interesting "What if" but the nom fails to mention DGG's strong encouragement to Mztourist not to open this DRV because it would have almost no chance of success. -- GreenC13:35, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and I also just added "reportedly" because that is exactly what the article says. I opened a talk page discussion days ago and nobody responded. I look forward to working with you on the article. -- GreenC00:49, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - I see three questions that are being raised here:
Is the close a valid conclusion based on the editor inputs and on Wikipedia policies and guidelines?
Was the procedure involved in the closing of the AFD one that serves the interest of the Wikipedia community with regard to content?
Does any editor who either did or did not take part in the AFD agree with the close?
The answer to the first is an unequivocal Yes, and in fact the closer has done far more than was required. The closer, User:Barkeep49, should be thanked again for writing an extremely detailed and well-reasoned close in a contentious discussion. Only the first question is being decided here, so that is an Endorse.
The answer to the second question is one that can be addressed to a policy forum. Should there be a procedure for designating particular administrators to close particular AFDs? There isn't such a procedure that I know of. Should there be a procedure for an administrator to start to close an AFD that precludes other closers? At AFC, a reviewer can mark a draft as under review, but that tag indicates that they should be contacted if they have started a review and haven't finished. Should we have such a procedure? If so, how long should an AFD be Pending Close before another closer can start? I think that these questions should be addressed somewhere, probably at Village Pump. But DRV is a content forum, not a policy forum.
The third question doesn't matter. The close can be endorsed.
There is a fourth question, not raised in this appeal. That is what User:Mztourist wants to do. Find another closer? Overturn to Delete? Overturn to No Consensus? That also doesn't matter, because the close is good.
endorse the !vote was one sided enough for WP:IAR to apply. If this were a BLP, it would be a very different story. But it isn't. On top of that the arguments for keeping aren't horrible. A bit of a stretch, but not horrible. Hobit (talk) 01:00, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And to be clear, WP:V is met. There is plenty for us to say here based on the sources. It's just that we aren't sure what the underlying reality is. We can make that clear. And frankly, that's not all that different than a lot of history. Hobit (talk) 11:31, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The close was a reasonable read of the discussion. It's a shame the discussion veered off the rails somewhat. Reasonable people might have held different opinions, which the discussion might have benefited from at the time had they contributed, but that is neither here nor there now. Congratulations are due to DGG on their growing family, and thanks due to the closer Barkeep who stepped in appropriately to make a well-explained close. A "No consensus" close would have been defensible as well, but since they're pretty close in implications, and the "Keep" close made is sensible, it's hardly worth debating. Martinp (talk) 01:58, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn I based my support above on the hope that it would be possible to write a verifiable article, and I assume that Barkeep made a similar assumption, that a verifiable article was possible. This has even in these few days proven not to be the case. The key statement is justified by trivial comment, not reliable oral evidence. Those who support the use of oral evidence ought to make sure they at least do have respectably strong oral evidence--the acceptance of this content will be used as an argument by those who would reject all such sourcing. What is being now excused as IAR was actually false and disruptive claims of prejudice. I am not prepared to ignore the basic foundational principle of WP:V., and that's really the issue here. The argument that the subject, though not in any previous book or other serious work on the subject, will be in future books is unfortunately correct--other sources will copy Wikipedia. DGG ( talk ) 06:46, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It now says "reportedly". I opened a talk page discussion days ago, no one chose to participate. I look forward to working with you through any wording concerns. -- GreenC01:03, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to delete or draftify. I disagree with the closer that "there is a consensus that the information in the article is verifiable". Instead, looking at the discussion, one sees that the "keep" side's arguments mostly amount to "she's notable as a war chief", but they generally do not engage in any detail with the "delete" side's well-substantiated arguments establishing that it is not verifiable through reliable sources that she was in fact a war chief or even participated in the Battle of Little Bighorn. Instead, even "keep" opinions admit that "biographical details are scarce" (Pamzeis), "coverage can expected to be scarce for cultural and historic reasons" (BD2412), "sourcing is going to be difficult" (Ser Amantio di Nicolao) or "biographic details are scarce" (Brandmeister). While notability is a matter of judgment and therefore mostly up to local consensus, verifiability, as a core policy, is not. Not even a local consensus of editors may choose to disregard it. The closer should therefore have discounted most "keep" opinions and found a policy-based consensus to delete the article. This does not exclude covering Pretty Nose under an angle that is supported by sources - possibly an article or a section in another article about her photographs or the oral traditions about her might be viable, if there are sources about that. But an article that asserts in Wikipedia's voice that she took part in the battle and/or was a war chief is, based on the evidence presented in the AfD, incompatible with WP:V. Sandstein 08:16, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Struck my comment above: Looking at the article more closely, there are in fact sources that assert her status as a war chief, such as VoA. The whole story still lacks proper scholarly sources rather than just media or incidental sourcing, but I can't call it entirely unverifiable. As such this seems in fact more like a question of (dubious) notability, which is a matter of editorial judgment. Sandstein 19:10, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There were, I think, 14 biographical articles on American Indians that were nominated for deletion over 2 days. Those of us who could do decent research work and a churn out perfectly written vote with 2-3 topics in one week can't stand a chance of doing that with 14. By the time I'd done enough research to perhaps edit my vote, we'd been told to make no further comments by an uninvolved admin who seems to be a stickler for relisting rules. The hands of anyone who is going to spend more than an hour per American Indian deletion are tied with that kind of culture at AfD. Writing "according to her descendant" and leaving the "war chief" claim out of the lead is the best move, but overturning because we disagree on how the article is phrased should be addressed on the talk page, not in deletion review. isn't it only a wait of 6 months or a year to try to get it deleted again? Just wait on it. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 10:52, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sandstein You will not find scholarly sources on the overwhelming majority of American Indian topics from that time and before. Most topics were purposefully suppressed and even more were discounted because of who the subject was about. It takes a lot longer to find any sources on these subjects than their European or American counterparts. The question then turns to whether Wikipedia decides to acknowledge this and find a way to incorporate these subjects or to stay rigid in the face of it and potentially perpetuate the bias shown against these cultures. You could nominate more than half the articles here on American Indian cultures, figures and subjects but should you? That is the ultimate question. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 16:01, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Tsistunagiska, I am aware that due to systemic bias many topics are not as well sourced as we would like them to be. But WP:V, as a core policy, is not negotiable and we have no authority to deviate from it either individually or by local consensus. Our reliance on reliable sources is what gives Wikipedia, as a whole, its value. Sandstein 16:13, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sandstein I would argue that the very thing you say adds value to Wikipedia serves to cheapen its value and disenfranchise a large swath of people who find the exclusion of these articles, and others, to be distasteful and a continuation of the systemic bias. In its attempt to stay above the fray it has made itself a champion and rally point for systemic bias because of its denial and refusal to use common sense while trying to maintain its integrity and whitewashed appearance. Most of us are trying to create an encyclopedia in good faith, I have to assume that and I believe that, even in the case of those whom I disagree with. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 16:43, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that a claim is dubious or even counterfactual doesn't mean we should delete. That's why we have articles on Bigfoot and Pizzagate and the moon landing conspiracy theories. We can and should explain why some sources call her a war chief, and give the contrary view as well.—S MarshallT/C08:29, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What bothers me about DGG's and Sandstein's principled opinions above is that at neither of the two AFDs did anyone claim the article should be deleted on grounds of lack of verifiability. Perhaps they could or should have done so but they did not – the argument was lack of notability. So closer's statement "there is a consensus that the information in the article is verifiable" seems factually correct and I don't think the closer was simply making an assumption of verifiability within the article. When verifiability was not being explicitly challenged no rebuttal could be expected or required. A close of delete could, I think, only be on WP:IAR grounds. For draftify it all hangs out. Thincat (talk) 08:38, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As you have repeated this comment from your Endorse above I will respond to it. My deletion comment was "not seeing SIGCOV in multiple RS to satisfy WP:GNG. One well-used picture isn't enough". The lack of multiple RS means WP:V wasn't satisfied. As noted in my review request, there are multiple key issues that are not verified: her tribe, her status as a war chief and her participation in the Battle of Little Big Horn.Mztourist (talk) 08:49, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse The discussion was clearly in favour of keeping. While the closer could have framed the question as: should keep !voters be overruled when WP:GNG is not met? and deleted the article, this would have been incorrect, as even though many of the keep !voters didn't discuss source anaysis, they did look at the subject holistically and conclude that notability was met. Given the context, this is a perfectly fair and reasonable position to take, so the keep !votes can't be discounted. Good close. SportingFlyerT·C09:38, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse It's true that the sourcing for the article is poor, I don't see this close as a bad call, per their closing statement. Huge applause goes to Barkeep49 for stepping up in this difficult time. —Nnadigoodluck███10:08, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - Barkeep49’s closing rationale was thoughtful, and interpreted the consensus and !votes correctly. No procedural errors occurred. The article was improved during the deletion discussion, and there are several editors who are committed to further research to continue to improve it. Netherzone (talk) 13:21, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse we have not arrived at a point where we choose closers - thankfully. In regard to the Pretty Nose AfD, Barkeep49 closed this AfD after careful consideration. Lightburst (talk) 15:35, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, in response to several remarks above, I do not work on articles where I am encountering this sort of conflict or editing by reverts. Many editors enjoy it, and I know its our standard editing practice. but I think it's unconstructive. I work on articles where there is some possibility I can make a stable improvement. I have a list of a dozen or so articles I have had some involvement with at afd that I think absolutely unjustified for an encyclopedia and that I know will be impossible to remove. This will be added to it. The list serves me as a reminder to avoid the temptation of getting involved again. DGG ( talk ) 17:01, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, I explained the change on the talk page, but if you don't want to be involved, that is fine too. If you ever change your mind, I look forward to working with you again in the future. Regards. -- GreenC21:25, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse-The article was written and presented with legitimate and easily verifiable sources and did not make suppositions or conclusions not found in those sources. The article has been updated beyond what was even decided after the first nomination. Oral tradition is very important to American Indian history. One can not discount this when reviewing articles about these cultures and especially those about subjects prior to the 1970s when information on American Indians was considered "less important" than those of Euro-American topics. It is prudent to mention, however, that articles should not contain information not found in the sources used to create an article, especially in regards to those on American Indian topics. In my opinion, bringing this up for review only serves to deepen the wounds of the past and cause further division. The deletion of this article would have defied common sense and served to disenfranchise many from the American Indian community that would otherwise be good contributors to this encyclopedia. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 15:39, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is the above editors opinion and does not reflect the reality of the discussion. The consensus determined that the totality of the sources provided and the historical significance of the article deemed it worthy of inclusion as the closer noted. It isn't a matter of just "liking the article" as many of the same ones who voted to keep this article, myself included, also voted to delete and merge others due to a lack of sources. If it was based simply on liking an article or a specific POV those same editors would have voted to keep all of them. So the supposition above is unfounded in the reality of the vote across the entire 14 AfD's to delete historically relevant articles on Oglala Sioux American Indians who are notable to them, some well sourced and some not so much. It is equal to us saying that those who voted to delete did so just because they didn't like it which is equal to assuming bad faith on the part of those partaking in the discussion. This tone is quite inflammatory and offensive. It also could be seen as a personal attack on those who voted to keep. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 16:18, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rather rich to accuse me of making a personal attack and assuming "bad faith" when you questioned Mztoutrist's delete !vote with Doesn't belong here? Why? Because it's not European enough? As for the discussion itself, one keep vote read Keep this notable war chief. which is basically "notable person meets notability criteria because they are notable". Also much of the discussion revolved around great misunderstandings on what it meant to be an Arapho war chief or what she did in the battle (a notable historic figure as a war chief; she was a war chief. If I understand correctly, this is akin to being like a four- or five-star general leading a major battle.; etc.) despite no sources actually affirming what that title even meant (I looked and found nothing). So I think its fair to characterize a lot of these little supported support votes as I have above. -Indy beetle (talk) 20:23, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think I have acknowledged, well enough, that I went too far with some of my arguments. Bringing up others responses doesn't relieve you of your attacks and mischaracterizations of others. You can look at the history of other American Indian nations around the Arapaho, like the Sioux, Cherokee, Choctaw, Cheyenne, Apache and Navajo and find clear examples of what a war chief is. Most had peace chiefs and war chiefs. As to whether she was a war chief or not, our opinion one way or another doesn't matter. It's what the sources say. Nothing in the article assumes things not represented in the sources. You argued that the sources did not equal up to pass WP:GNG. That was your opinion. Others had a different opinion and expressed it. The consensus resulted in a keep. A review was requested. Nothing has been brought forward in this review except more of the same opinions along with additional inflammatory language by those who opposed the result of the AfD. She was notable as an Arapaho. She was notable as an American Indian. That was the result of the consensus when applying common sense to policy. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 20:47, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
