Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hervarar saga ok Heiðreks

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. Eluchil404 (talk) 02:51, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hervarar saga ok Heiðreks

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

The entire article is based on WP:OR with only an allusion to one scholar who doesn't appear to meet with any criteria suggesting that he's notable or peer reviewed (i.e., he has pet theories and has written a paper on the subject).

I fail to see how this article should remain outside of its appeal as being a number of variants on WP:ITSIMPORTANT and WP:ITSINTERESTING. Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:48, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:04, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:04, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:04, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You don't make it clear which scholar you are referring to above (the article has only a single footnote but lists several references), but even if what you are saying would be true or relevant, a quick look at the other language wikipedias (such as the German or Swedish) show that there are additional publications by other scholars dealing with the saga (the ones by Henrik Schück in the Swedish article, for instance). --Hegvald (talk) 04:58, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Considering the fact that there's only one paper cited for the entire article, I couldn't be talking about anyone other than Alaric Hall as I've indicated on the article's talk page here. The article was tagged for additional citations for verification in September of 2013, but there's been no progress in improving the verifiability of the bulk of the content through attribution to secondary sources. A "References" list is of no value unless these references are cited in the body of the article as the article content may be virtually completely WP:OR. All the references list addresses is the fact that the work exists, not that Wikipedia's entry isn't someone's POV fabrication. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:56, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So what is your issue exactly, that there are some details that you find dubious or that the topic is not worthy of a Wikipedia article? As for Hall, I commented on the talk page. --Hegvald (talk) 18:30, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is that there are no citations from reliable sources other than one questionable source (and only for a couple of statements) within the entire body of the article. I've had this article on my watchlist for a few years and have seen various additions and subtractions to the content which cannot be verified one way or the other, the most recent being here. To be honest, that was the straw that broke the camel's back. There's no way of establishing what is OR and what is not. There's nothing preventing non-English sources being used so long as they are reliable and verifiable yet, every time I've communicated with anyone contributing to the article, I am assured that that contributor intends to develop the article providing sources. It hasn't happened as yet.

Ultimately, the existence of the saga is verifiable and possibly/probably meets GNG. The content of the article, however, does not satisfy any criteria other than OR. If the article is to remain per GNG, it needs to be cut back down to a stub and developed from scratch. While I'm familiar with the article content, the subject matter is not in my area of expertise... and the article content, in itself, reads as OR with nothing to substantiate any of the claims in it. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:52, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. Hegvald (talk) 20:09, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Hegvald (talk) 20:09, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment taken from WP:CONTN - "Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article. ... Conversely, if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability." As an even prefunctory internet search brings up a no. of texts talking of this saga and alluding to inspiration of Tolkien (or was that another saga?:)) it is probably a keep or a redirect to the more widely known, for english wikipedia anyway, the english title. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:06, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The fact that the article isn't verfied doesn't mean it's not verifiable. If the quality of the article, or at least the quality of the sourcing, demands it's pruned back to a stub, then maybe that's what we need to do, but the answer to the question should English Wikipedia have an article about the Saga of Hervör and Heidrek? is yes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julle (talk • contribs) 10:25, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The fact that the article's sources are given in a general reference list rather than in footnotes can hardly have any impact on the notability of the subject itself. /FredrikT (talk) 15:24, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This saga is very well known and very important. See hervara saga. I would have been very surprised if there were not an article on it in Wikipedia. There are scholarly articles within each of the four books listed as references, which mostly agree with one another. I see no reason to suppose that the writer relies for everything only on the article on A. Hall from which only page 14 is referenced. I think Hall's article, as the most recent complete study of the work, deserves this mention in the article. I don't how what the author of this complaint was looking up when he claimed he could find no texts on the web talking of this saga. His search skills seem to be abominable. Jallan (talk) 02:49, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Assuming that it is notable, at least per the Tolkien connection (although I'm not certain that it is or isn't, as he drew from a plethora of sagas and mythology), unfortunately I can't see any reasonable option other than to cut it back to a stub. If not, I'd have to WP:TAGBOMB it for citations. As it stands, I haven't seen that any regulars other than myself have it on their watchlist for the last few years, and I have no reasonable excuse for removing new unsourced additions as I'm inevitably questioned as to why it isn't acceptable due to the rest of the content being unsourced/unverifiable. I'll accept it as being notable for Wikipedia under the circumstances, but think it best to cut and paste the unsourced content on the talk page and only reinstate it as it is cited. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:17, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: That the article is at least notable is proved by the number of references on the web. See [[1]]. To assume your good faith I must assume your ignorance of this. Your attempt to have this article deleted is plainly illegal because the article is notable, not even regarding the fact that Christopher Tolkien is one of the sources given. As has been pointed out here already by others, lack of citation through footnotes is not the same as lack of verifiability. Stop trying to confuse the two. This is a topic which there are are almost no current disputes to be addressed. You haven't indicated any. So what is your problem? One might simply point out the lack of disputes and cite vii to xxxviii in Christopher Tolkien [[2]] and note that Alaric Hall's 2005 article suggests a slightly revised schematic stemma of the text's relationship. Or would that be too easy a solution? You assume that Alaric Hall's article is dubious but don't verify this. One rule for you but one for others is not good practice. Alaric Hall's article seems to me to be valid as do his other articles. See http://www.alarichall.org.uk/iease.php . Nothing he has posted here looks crank to me. No articles show that Goths were really Martians or Moonmen. Nothing anywhere in this article supports your contention, so far as I can see, that the article is based only on WP:OR. The academic material in this argument appears to me to be based mainly on works by Christopher Tolkien, not WP:OR. If I gather from your discussion, simply acknowledging this in the article should satisfy you citation complaint, though most others seem to have already figured that out. Jallan (talk) 22:06, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Jallan, it appears that you've forgotten about fundamental principles of Wikipedia, being WP:AGF and WP:NPA. The article has been on my watchlist as a by-product of my predominant field, being that of Eastern European mythology and equivalent 'sagas'. Rather than expend your energy on deriding me and presenting RS pertaining to the article here, you could add it to your watchlist and involve yourself in its development (you're notably absent from both the edit history for the article and talk). I'm more than happy to remove it from my watchlist and leave it to someone who has the expertise to enter into dialogues with IP and one-off users who may or may not bother to discuss any unsourced content changes, prominently the latter. Considering that you have an abundance of evidence as to its meeting GNG for English Wikipedia, I'm happy to drop it so long as you commit yourself to overseeing it. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:04, 19 April 2015 (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.