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. Additional sourcing resulted in a definite shift in consensus towards keeping the article despite concerns about the role of a banned editor in creating it. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 01:02, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Massacre of Running Waters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

As noted in the article's talk page, this is a small page that was entirely written by a user that was quickly banned for admitting to being an SPA working to spread political propaganda on Wikipedia. The sources for this article are very scant, I've looked over them and they only give a single sentence in each with passing mention to the subject. All refer to one primary source. I have also already put in the work to delete blatant falsehoods and work on the article, but it doesn't look like anyone will fix it up any time soon. Given the person who wrote it and the falsehoods I've already found, I propose deleting it, and if the article's topic can be shown to be true or notable it can be rewritten. Per: WP:Dynamite Poketama (talk) 10:40, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Poketama (talk) 10:40, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak Delete This is difficult for me, because I think this article has potential. No doubt there is some plethora of hidden knowledge in a library in Australia somewhere that can help this article, but the books there have never been put online. That being said, there was already an AFD for this article, it had a chance to be improved and there were still concerns. I think this article can be brought up to speed, there are some sources, but I think Poketama's WP:Dynamite idea might cut the Gordian knot here. I've usefied what's there now and will try to recreate the article if I ever get any time to do so. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 12:10, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am removing my comment per this article regarding the previous AFD and comments made by the person that closed the previous AFD. I am unsure if the article should be deleted or not. I think it might be able to be salvaged, but I am not sure. However, if it is deleted, I will try to recreate it in user space when I get the time. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 12:19, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – The article has been extensively revised since its creation, so WP:DENY doesn't apply. In my mind, the main question is whether it's true, and that hasn't been shown in the the previous AfD or this one, and no policy reason has been provided. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:33, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The article reads to me as very similar to when it was initially published, except it has been 'wikified' a bit. All the sources are the same, and I have read the sections of the sources and they are only passing references to Strehlow's account. In my view, this event is not verifiable unless someone can pull up another source. The only source is Strehlow. There is next to no information on this massacre anywhere on the internet except on the biased blog sites that the original creator used. Poketama (talk) 12:39, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Here's some policy. WP:EXCEPTIONAL WP:NRV I'm happy to withdraw my request for deletion if other sources can be found, but at the moment this article cannot be said to be verifiable or notable because it relies entirely on the testimony of Tjalkabota as recorded by Strehlow. Poketama (talk) 12:45, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment appears GNG if it has a chapter in the Strehlow book, unless he's somehow connected to the incident. Probably TNT it for now. Oaktree b (talk) 13:07, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Michael Bednarek who is spot on. What has changed since the last AfD? Deus et lex (talk) 10:29, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Nothing has changed. The discourse on the last AfD led several users to say they would work on the article to fix the problems that had been highlighted, but then no one did. Poketama (talk) 12:22, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - why is Strehlow not enough? He was writing down cultural oral history, so he's not a primary source. There has been a mention by Blainey too, so further coverage (even if very limited). The issue really boils down to a content dispute, not notability - and the article shouldn't be deleted if that is the case. AFD is not cleanup and shouldn't be used to further that. Deus et lex (talk) 21:30, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:18, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:EXCEPTIONAL and WP:SIGCOV. To quote our policy, "Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources." At issue here is that we have only 1 high quality source for this topic which is an exceptional claim. I have no issue with Strehlow as a source, but we need at a minimum at least one more source of equal in-depth coverage to meet our policy guideline for a topic of this nature. Blainey is too brief to qualify. If we had just one more high quality piece of evidence I would support keeping this article, but we don't.4meter4 (talk) 16:27, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - @4meter4: I think your comment shows a bias towards the requirements for current events. This is an historical event where sources are always going to be more limited. Strehlow was the original recorder of the oral history sources that witnessed the event and obtained it from multiple people. Blainey is a well-respected historian even if it is brief, it doesn't have to be long to be a good source. I'd ask you to reconsider - I know it's borderline but I think good faith should lean on the side of keeping the article. Deus et lex (talk) 21:23, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Um, how is this showing bias or being unduly influenced by WP:RECENTISM? WP:EXCEPTIONAL and WP:SIGCOV are policies that apply to ALL ARTICLEs, not just current events. Further, you don't need to keep WP:BLUDGEONing your point. I think you are just looking for any excuse to ignore our policies as written.4meter4 (talk) 21:32, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Accusing me of ignoring policies is not helping. I'm simply trying to explain that this event is written in a particular cultural setting where oral history is prevalent and therefore you're not going to have the multiplicity and detail of sources that you would for other events. In any case, I've found another one which I'll write about in a minute and add to the article. Deus et lex (talk) 21:59, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I have found another source that describes and analyses this event in detail - Professor Sam Gill has a chapter on it in his book on "Storytracking". The particular chapter can be read in the Google preview. Gill says that the local peoples of the local area recount the event and say it is a shaping factor in their local politics and that there's independent evidence of a revenge attack in 1890, but appears to conclude that Strehlow went beyond reporting the story and the account needs to be seen in that light. I will add to the article. Hopefully this solves things. Deus et lex (talk) 22:05, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Leaning keep per the above arguments. If there is doubt as to the reliability of memories recounted in the sources, convey that through the article itself. BD2412 T 03:34, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV per the additional source found by Deus et lex. I struck my delete vote above because my concerns have been properly addressed.4meter4 (talk) 18:32, 9 October 2022 (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.