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.
I've been convinced that the article is clearly warranted and further editing to fix issues rather than deletion is the answer. Thanks for the feedback. Bacondrum10:46, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This article relies exclusively on claims made by an unreliable source, a 19th century colonial, evangelical missionary. Colonial accounts from this era are famously racist and often wildly inaccurate. The one contemporary source, is Geoffrey Blainey, a highly controversial historian in regards to Aboriginal Australians and the culture wars, and Blainey is relying on the same aforementioned colonial account. This article was created by an editor who is now indef blocked for dedicating most of his efforts here to attacking an Aboriginal academic [1]. The editor who created this article also runs a site dedicated to attacking the same Aboriginal academic and Aboriginal people generally [2]. Looking at the way this article is phrased, the weird and irrelevant choice of images - why did we have an image of blood letting [3]? I believe this article was created to make Aboriginal Australians look like violent barbarians and play down the brutality of colonialism. Sadly this kind of nasty attempt to imply Aboriginal people were savages is common here in Australia. If this story was true we'd have numerous reliable sources, the events are fairly recent in histories page, no evidence of Aboriginal oral history documenting these events, which historians agree are usually highly accurate [4]. At the very least his contributions about Aboriginal Australians should be gone over thoroughly. Bacondrum22:17, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – The nominator doesn't present any policy-based reason. The claim that [th]his article relies exclusively on claims made by an unreliable source is obviously wrong – it cites 6 sources. The nominator's characterization of Ted Strehlow is not supported by his article. Blainey is a highly credentialed prolific author and academic. His views on Aboriginal history, as shown in Triumph of the Nomads (1975) and subsequent publications, have been described as groundbreaking and sympathetic to Aboriginal people. The article's creator's circumstances should play no role in assessing the article. It is unclear which phrases the nominator objects to, and irrelevant pictures have been removed. It is also unclear how the article was created to make Aboriginal Australians look like violent barbarians and play down the brutality of colonialism. The nomination the descends into a blatant assumption of bad faith and hypothesis, appealing to evidence of absence, and presenting an unrelated link. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:53, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If others feel the article is not meant to demean or attack Aboriginal people then fair enough. I see a lot of false equivelence and racism in Austhistory99's activities here. I do assume bad faith on the behalf of user:Austhistory99 they've been indef blocked for editing in bad faith which was mostly focused on attacking Aboriginal people and he runs a website littered with profoundly racist and deeply offensive content relating to Aboriginal people. I may be wrong and accept it if I am, but Austhistory99's efforts off wikipedia speak volumes:
"We on the Centre-right appear to be losing the day-to-day ‘cultural-war’ because we have real, fruitful lives and don’t spend mind-numbing hours on the keyboard ‘re-writing history and ‘the narrative’, like our Progressive-Left opponents do. Nevertheless, if we have some spare time it is worthwhile lobbing into Wikipedia ( the Oracle of the Progressive Left!) some real history from time to time. In the long run it will help our cause in the cultural wars. Today Wikipedia approved my entry on the Aboriginal inter-tribal Massacre of Running Waters. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_of_Running_Waters" - Austhistory99 @https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/qed/2020/09/something-wiki-this-way-comes/
Keep - The concerns about the motivations of the (now-blocked) creator of the article may be valid, but I have to agree with Michael Bendarek here that there's no sound policy-based reason for deletion of this article. While some on the left disagree with some of Blainey's historical views, there is no question that he is a well-respected Australian historian and certaintly isn't someone where we can just disregard his writing. My feeling (in good faith) is that the nom's concerns about the article are really concerns about ensuring a neutral point of view and could be easily fixed by some edits to the page rather than deleting the article. As Wikipedia requires alternatives to deletion to be considered first, editing the article to improve it should be the first option. Deus et lex (talk) 09:50, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per posts above, the article is apparently about a notable event, with citations to reputable sources, and does not meet any of the criteria for deletion. (Note that "created by now-blocked user" is not listed as a reason for deletion. In particular, in the absence of evidence of ban- or block-evasion WP:G5 does not apply.) If the article is biased, then edit it accordingly to make it neutral, instead of deleting it. Mitch Ames (talk) 10:44, 27 January 2021 (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.