As concerning an author of eleven books, with thousands attending his lectures, the deletion of the article is difficult indeed to understand. This page was recently edited to rectify gross inaccuracies apparently due to hostile vandalism (as mentioned on its Talk page.) It seems suspicious that it should then be suddenly deleted without any discussion; and that the administrator who did so immediately thereafter announced themselves unavailable to be contacted (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Biblioworm). Reference citations had been added to the Talk page, supporting that Manitonquat is indeed a recognized elder of the Wampanoag nation, who has been well-respected among authorities on Native American culture and tribal leaders for decades. It seems remarkable indeed that this sudden deletion without discussion should swiftly follow the presentation of such evidence. This can hardly be considered without reference to allegations of previous vandalism to the page. There is a long history of violent hostility to Native American culture. No one well-informed about Indian concerns could forget that when reviewing these facts of this extraordinary deletion. Further documentation / citations regarding the longevity and notability of Manitonquat's work is available on request. Horse Dancing (talk) 21:02, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've never set foot in the US and never will, so I accept that I'm ill-informed about Indian concerns, but apparently I'm violently hostile to Native American culture as well, because I can't see a sudden deletion without discussion. What I can see is a full discussion in which editors reached a reasoned consensus to delete the material. That doesn't mean Wikipedia will never host an article with this title, though. That AfD was a decision to delete a specific version of the article that editors felt was promotional.
There are several reasons why Wikipedia is very attractive to marketers, and we've adapted to their activities by becoming vigilant, efficient and decisive in removing promotional material. If we stopped doing this then our encyclopaedia would rapidly fill up with spam and hype. I'm afraid you won't get DRV to overturn the original decision.
However, what you might be able to do is produce a fresh draft with this title which is less promotional, and subject to sight of the language and the sources you use, it's possible that DRV will restore this fresh draft. I would recommend that you begin by posting links or citations to at least two reliable sources about Manitonquat in this discussion.—S MarshallT/C08:51, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Thanks very much to all who have promptly responded on this topic.
Here's a screenshot of the edit done Dec 17. Please consider it as a fresh draft if that suits. Would be most interested to hear any precise objections on its content, accuracy, or notability:
First to clarify: I can't see how anyone here can claim that they themselves have been personally accused of hostility to Native American culture. All that was said is that such hostility does exist; and that some behavior around this article raises concerns that it cannot be ruled out as a factor. Yet it can be characteristic of people from the dominant racial background, who are not particularly well-informed regarding issues of racism, to feel insulted, and speak unreasonably, if anyone so much as mentions the fact that racism exists; that it negatively impacts people in real ways, or that anyone might be concerned about it.
Second, apologies: for my failure to find the AFD. I'm new to this process. I've read it now. Although very much appreciating the expertise and experience demonstrated in the AFD, regarding Wikipedia's well-developed criteria, other expertise can be called for in particular topics.
I see no input there which indicates any particular expertise on the admittedly easily obscured work of modern Native American elders / spiritual leaders. Some of the sources I've approached on this have pointed out that no one seems to have contacted the Wampanoag tribal leaders to ask them about the topic.
Native Americans can be notoriously non-technical; and behind the times in terms of access to modern technology. Records regarding their Native ancestry have historically been not only poorly-kept, but at times even outlawed. These are issues which anyone in this discussion ought to take the trouble to make themselves acquainted with.
Admittedly, Manitonquat's work is not well-documented in cyber space. Still it is necessary to recognize that we still live in a world in which "notable" and "online" are not entirely synonymous. Independent records I've been able to find so far are not the most Wikipedia-friendly. I'd like to post some news clippings here in pdf, but can't claim (as the prompt requires me to do) that they are at all my own work. (Can one of the administrators here point out how to display articles I'm referring to?)
Further regarding Wikipedia notability criteria, I have personally worked on articles which Wikipedia has expressly fostered for development; although there was no info available on the topic outside of promotional materials from the subjects themselves (in one case, a small community college in Africa.) So, although basing an entry on promotional materials alone seems by no means a barrier to notability, yet there is abundant independent evidence of notability in this case. Nor can a combination of traditional publishers and self-publishing be considered any hallmark of unnotability: that is the paradigm for many of the best-known authors today. So the argument regarding lack of notability seems rather thin.
And being so thin, one must ask oneself again, why the rush to delete? Could prejudice regarding cultural values have played a part here? (To all reading this: please don't take it as a personal insult, that anyone should raise that question.) -- Horse Dancing (talk) 11:02, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Horse Dancing,
You are correct to understand that generally-speaking, you can't upload clippings of newspaper/magazine stories etc to Wikipedia for copyright reasons. But you don't actually have to be able to show or link to the article itself to use it to demonstrate notability. Is there any chance you could tell us some of the details of the sources you have, such as the publication name, date of publication, page number, the headline of course, and a very brief summary of what they said about Manitonquat?
There are basically two ways that a deletion like this can be overturned. The first would be if there was a significant issue with the way the deletion discussion was carried out (for instance, if the administrator who closed it misinterpreted the actual consensus of the discussion, or if there was a procedural error). Frankly I don't think that applies here - the discussion was very clear in its outcome. The other possibility is that you have some new information which, if it had been known at the time of the deletion discussion, would have feasibly changed the outcome. In this particular discussion, the basic issue which led to the deletion was that the article didn't appear to meet Wikipedia's policies on what is notable and what isn't. The most relevant one is the policy on notability for living people. If you have new information that shows this policy might actually be met after all, that would be a strong argument to persuade people here in this deletion review that the previous deletion should be overturned.
In a sense, editors like you and I don't get to determine what is notable. That would lead to endless bickering and pointless arguments (even more than we already have!). Instead we "outsource" the question "is this notable?" to "reliable sources" - newspapers, books, academic papers, even TV shows - that have a good track record of reliability, that cover the topic in significant depth, and very importantly, that are editorially independent of the subject itself. If those sources have written about a topic in a way that suggests it meets our notability policies - then it meets our notability policies (with some exceptions that don't concern us here).
So in terms of Wikipedia policy, "basing an entry on promotional materials alone" is very much a barrier to notability. Our policy and tradition says, if this thing is truly notable, independent journalists will have written about it, and you wouldn't need to rely on promotional materials alone. And if that leads to us sometimes not having articles about things we really should, we're mostly OK with that, trusting that eventually the independent authors and journalists of the world will catch up and provide us the evidence we need to satisfy our policies - there's no hurry.
For what it's worth, I am someone who quite often ends up arguing "keep" when other people are arguing "delete", but I can assure you that these policies are applied quite consistently. Racial or cultural prejudice is not a factor here, and a great many contributors to these discussions are from countries and cultures where they didn't grow up with any prejudice against (or even much awareness of) Native American society. At the end of the day, what happens next is very much going to depend on those offline sources you have found, and what they say about Manitonquat.
Allow recreation - This DRV is about Manitonquat (English translation Medicine Story ) (born Francis Story Talbot July 17, 1929), a storyteller and New Age author. I think there is enough (on the low end) to write a biography on the topic. A search for Manitonquat provided new source material:
Edith Kirby. Edmonton Journal (Canada). April 15, 1992. Wisdom lightened by humor offered by native storytellers page B4
John F. Kirch. Worcester Telegram & Gazette. Watershed Fair Promotes Fun, Environment \ Friends Of Wachusett May 9, 1993
Nicholas A. Basbanes. Worcester Telegram & Gazette. There's Something For Every Kid On The Bookshelf' page 10 June 26, 1994
Dallas Morning News. Mixed Media. September 11, 1994. page 4
Norma Livo. Denver Rocky Mountain News. Sparkling Suggestions For Children's Literary Journeys September 25, 1994. Page 73A
Jessie Salisbury. The Telegraph (Nashua). Foundation in Wilton teaching stewardship July 6, 2005
Comment - OK many thanks Thparkth & Jreferee. All that info is most helpful indeed.
More independent source material:
Christian Science Monitor, September 17, 1987 (page 1) "How the Founding Fathers took a page from the Iroquois book" (theme: Native American government practices influence in the formation of American democracy)
Record of an interview with Slow Turtle and Medicine Story (Manitonquat). Slow Turtle is reported as "Supreme medicine man of the Wampanoag nation and executive director of the Massachusetts Commission on Indian Affairs". He and Medicine Story officiate together at a ceremony honouring Native American ancestors and the Iroquois League's role "as a foundation for the [US] Constitution." The event is attended by "50 American history buffs and international students." Medicine Story is referred to in the next paragraph as "medicine man of the Assonets as well as author and storyteller." He (Manitonquat / Medicine Story) is quoted at length, along with Slow Turtle. It's clear that the two work closely together in their respective tribal briefs.
Will follow up with a number of other clippings a.s.a.p. I've also managed to contact Medicine Story (whom, incidentally, I've personally heard speak at various events over the past thirty years.) He dislikes to comment on disputes of this kind (now in his 80s.) But, after my explaining the importance of Wikipedia as a general information source for millions of people all over the world, he wrote a letter explaining, for Wikipedia's sake, what he knows about how the controversy arose. It seems fair to include this. If an email address is provided, I'll ask him to send it on to you.
Please don't post text from other clippings as there is no need. If you want to post more source material in this discussion (which I don't think you need to do at this point), just post a cite to the material and perhaps a short, less than one sentence, summary of what it says about Manitonquat/Medicine Story. Also, Medicine Story's letter explaining how the controversy arose is not independent of Medicine Story, so it could not be used in the Wikipedia article about his life. In contacting Medicine Story, it would help if he can identify press clippings/books/etc. that have mentioned him and if he can upload into Wikimedia Commons photos of himself and other photos that capture his life to be used in the Wikipedia biography article. -- Jreferee (talk) 10:25, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment OK apols Jreferee I was responding to Thparkth who suggested I give outlines of articles which are not online. (That one was 1987.) I did ask Manitonquat for scans of clippings. Although way more computer literate than most people in their 80s, scanning clippings is not his forte; and he couldn't be bothered. (so much for his publicity seeking on his part!) Apparently enough material is referenced here now, thanks to everyone. Horse Dancing (talk) 17:06, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Here are two more:
The Townsend Common, June 22, 1989 "Medicine Story Brings Tribal Tales to Spaulding"
Article on Manitonquat's (Medicine Story) charity tour on benefiting the Multiple Schlerosis Foundation, performing Native American traditional storytelling for children. Refers to him as "keeper of the lore of the Wampanoag Nation of Massachusetts." Describes his telling an audience of second- & third-graders how it was the Wampanoags who spend the first Thanksgiving Day with the Pilgrims. Also reports: his teaching in prisons and performing Native American religious services there; his recent appointment as editor of "Heritage" magazine, a journal of re-evaluation counseling; and his role as "regional reference person for native people of the eastern US and Canada."
Lewiston (Maine) Daily Sun, Feb 14, 1987 "Humans either loving or looking for love" by Dan Austin
The article opens, "Medicine Story, an American Indian story teller whose name in the Wampanoag tongue is Manitonquat, appeared at University of Maine,...telling an afternoon counseling class that humans are always doing either of two things - and only two things. 'They are either loving, or looking for love ...' 'When children are not acting in a loving way, they are hurting...' he told the afternoon class of counseling and child education students... Later at an evening presentation in UMF's Nordica Auditorium ... adults sat in seats and children reclined about the stage, all in rapt attention as Medicine Story related the tale of Jumping Mouse,... of Bending Willow ... stories from Germany and Sweden, and closed with another tale from his own ancestry."
Allow recreation based on the new sources presented here, which would likely have altered the outcome of the AfD if known at the time. I have a few more to add to the list actually, all non-English but quite substantial treatments: [5][6][7]. Thparkth (talk)04:23, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - OK that sounds great. Am I correct in supposing that there is now a green light to re-create the page? (However the process is technically referred to.) I've never created a page before. But I guess I'll go ahead & give it the old college try in the meantime (if I can stay at the computer much longer today.) Thanks to all who participated in this review. Horse Dancing (talk) 15:04, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not yet. A green light depends on how the discussion ultimately is close. After seven days from 21:02, 29 December 2015 (UTC) (the date/time the DRV request was posted), an administrator will determine the discussion consensus. -- Jreferee (talk) 17:15, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - FYI I have re-created the page Manitonquat (along the lines of my previous edit of Dec 15-sh (see screenshot posted above). Hope that's alright. Will improve presently with citations & references mentioned here.
ALERT: "Rubbish Computer" has instantly responded by listing this page for speedy deletion (with reference to previous deletion debate, but not, apparently to this DRV.) I have posted to him about this DRV. He has acknowledged. But the speedy deletion notice is still on the Manitonquat page. Have responded in duplicate. Hope further confusion can be avoided. Thanks again for all your input. HAPPY NEW YEAR Horse Dancing (talk) 16:55, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete is correct since it is not yet seven days from 21:02, 29 December 2015 (UTC) (the date/time the DRV request was posted) and the discussion still is open (e.g., not closed). Please email me if you would like me to begin a draft of the article. -- Jreferee (talk) 17:15, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Allow recreation The AFD was correctly closed, but if all these new sources are available a new article can be written. However a draft: can be started before the close of this DRV. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:43, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose recreation per same reasons as in AfD. New sources are non-Native writers who are not in a position to evaluate subjects' claims. This should also be posted at the Indigenous wikiproject (I will do so now.) - CorbieV☊☼23:12, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, CorbieVreccan, possinly you may think better of using such an argument, and want to withdraw it. Acceptable sources for a topic are not limited to those of the subject's own ethnic group. DGG ( talk ) 04:51, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously, people of any ethnic group can, and do, edit Wikipedia. The point is that Native American status is not an "ethnic identity" when it comes to the actual tribes, rather than personal belief. The federally-recognized tribes are sovereign nations, for example, who decide on their own enrollment criteria. The other point is that Talbot is not Native American, though he has fooled many people into thinking he is. If the only sources for his claiming this identity are unsourced, or sourced only to his claims (including his claims to a small press or amateur journalist who never checked into it), those aren't reliable sources for him to claim to be Native. There are many non-Native writers who know how to navigate false claims. But most just take someone's word for it. The editor who brought this to deletion review is also a SPA who edits only to promote Talbot. - CorbieV☊☼17:44, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Beg pardon for my faut pas in jumping the gun on re-creation of the page. And thanks for indulgence toward the inexperienced. Guess we can call it a draft for now. Thanks also to the tireless & vigilant Rubbish computer for withdrawing the speedy deletion request after reviewing this DRV. Horse Dancing (talk) 17:24, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer: if consensus is to allow the recreation to stand then the edit history of Manitonquat needs to be restored for attribution purposes as the recreation uses text from the deleted version of that article. I imagine that the recreation will need to be moved to that title anyway to remove the unnecessary disambiguation. Hut 8.522:41, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Article was re-written on 12/29 and added an additional NEW 15+ references to P.A.W.N. from Mtv.com. The admins Bgwhite that proposed the original AFD on 12/17 failed to address the original 15 direct references out of 30 references as "noteworthy" because they didn't even take the time to review the the references or the articles entirely. When the article included an additional 15+ new references on 12/29 = totaling 30+ direct references out of 50 to P.A.W.N. the admins Bgwhite reviewed it with ignorance and submitted to speedy deletion. The admins Ymblanter then went and vandalized & slandered my accounts, they proposed for deletion 10+ photographs, some of which were on wiki for several years, then they went to pages that linked to P.A.W.N., and deleted the information of off other articles... which has been online for many years. Mfalc1 (talk) 20:54, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Like I said above, Ymblanter after you deleted my article, you went and proposed for deletion 10 to 15 of my photographs, which took me a half a day to correct with TICKET #'s, and copyright reviews... then you went to 5 to 10 other articles and deleted all mentioning of P.A.W.N. which were online for about 5 years now. No offense, but you Ymblanter and Bgwhite aren't even from America, I was born here, and I am a 3rd Generation, born and raised in Philadelphia, PA USA.... so you shouldn't be editing or reviewing articles that you have no relation to, nor understanding of American businesses, cultures, or societies... please stick to grammar editing and spelling mistakes, which you are qualified for, Please and Thank You. I have 3 degree's from Temple University, which is a renown Research University. If you continue this slander & vandalism, I will contact the Police and press criminal charges, and then I will file a Lawsuit in your local Court, and also in my Courts. Mfalc1 (talk) 22:04, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Mfalc1 How do you know I'm not from America and why does that matter? What does University degrees have to with it? (I have 5). Anybody can edit any page they want, unless they have a conflict of interest or are being paid to edit. If you work for PAWN, then you are violating the rules. Per WP:LEGAL, legal threats will result in being blocked. One is also not to use multiple accounts, including IP accounts. You have been doing this and can result in a block.
You were told at the AfD why all of your "references" do not count. Only independent, reliable reference that go in detail about the subject counts as a reference. "References" published by PAWN don't count. "References" that don't mention PAWN don't count. "References" that have one sentence about PAWN don't count. I only submitted it for AfD and everyone who discussed on policy grounds also agreed. Please argue on policy grounds, not what you want. Please stop flinging mud around, as that will only do you more harm than good. Bgwhite (talk) 22:22, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse and salt. The closing admin correctly chose to weigh the policy-based arguments in the AfD instead of incorrectly counting votes. And given that Mfalc1 has twice re-created the article against consensus, we should also protect against more re-creations. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:03, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse there was no way of closing that AfD as anything other than Delete and a recreation less than a week after the AfD closed with basically identical content is only going to be speedily deleted. The "additional NEW 15+ references to P.A.W.N. from Mtv.com" appear to consist of music videos associated with the subject which happen to be hosted on MTV.com and don't constitute significant third-party coverage of the subject. What counts for determining notability is whether any of the references meet the bar of WP:GNG, not the number of low-quality links that can be shoveled into the article. It looks like there's only been one recreation but if the creator persists in recreating it like this then salting would be necessary. Hut 8.511:26, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, the only "Keep" votes were from SPAs and not grounded in any policy. Good work by the closing administrator in holding fast against the legal threats made by the editor who brought this DRV. Lankiveil(speak to me)11:52, 30 December 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Delete I have reviewed the article's history and the vindictive author's editorial behaviour, including his SPA socket accounts. It is blatant self-promotion. If there was another non-involved Wikipedian ready to pick up the work from scratch, it may be recreated. Zezen (talk) 16:12, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion per AFD outcome, and if it's re-created in anything like its present form or without sufficient reliable, independent sources to clearly show that the company meets WP:N/WP:CORP, then WP:SALT it. I went to every reference of the most recent revision excluding those used in the music table and searched for "PAWN" and either "P.", "A.", "W.", or "N." Some of the references were audio- or video so I can't comment on them, but of the rest the only ones that came close to offering significant coverage were from either non-independent sources (including press releases or similar) or non-reliable sources. The cumulative total of text-base sources that were independent and reliable didn't rise to the level of "significant coverage" either. So, unless I missed something important in the audio- or video- references and those references are independent and reliable, then this needs to go per the AFD outcome. It's a shame, because someone (or "someones") went to a lot of work to put this together. If the original editor isn't around now and wants a copy emailed to him so he can print it out and hang it on his wall, I have no objections. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:25, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Virtonomics – Everyone, including the deleting sysop, agrees that the procedural mistake in this case was serious enough to justify relisting. There is no benefit in waiting for the customary 168 hours of a DRV to elapse in this instance. – —S MarshallT/C17:49, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
See this message from Joshua Issac; the issue is not with my closure itself, but it alleges that the AfD's consensus is flawed because it reviewed the November 2015 version, and not the much larger version before the heavy trimmings by Woodroar (I suppose this might be undeleted to review during the DRV, if it is, please update my linked diffs). This sounds like it could be a valid point, so at the very least I am submitting it for discussion here. Logical outcomes would be either to restore and relist with a specific note to look at larger version, or to leave deleted with the opinion that the larger version would not have had more chance of surviving at AfD. I consider myself neutral on the topic and this listing to be procedural (I don't feel strongly enough about either option to make the call myself). ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉17:27, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's been pointed out to me that I made a mistake and closed the AfD after a day of it being open (I must've opened a bunch of AfDs from WP:VG/AA, some to read and some to close, and misprocessed this one mistakenly believing it had been open on October 5th, not November 5th); there was also no justification for a snow close. I thus strongly lean in favor of relisting and not simply endorsing the tainted AfD. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉21:06, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisting sounds appropriate. I personally wasn't able to locate significant, independent coverage, which is why I !voted as I did. And I felt that the sources in the previous version were a mix of trivial, unreliable, and primary, many of which didn't even support their claim, which is why I removed them in the first place. But I've been wrong before, so relisting can't hurt. Woodroar (talk) 00:06, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relist. The accidental early closure (without invocation of WP:SNOW) seems enough reason to me, even without the fact that the discussion had not yet taken into account the earler pruning. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:11, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy relist (is that a thing?!). Under the circumstances this seems like the only possible outcome of the discussion, so maybe we shouldn't bother having one. Thparkth (talk)14:20, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy relist Nothing can justify the speedy closure. As has been noted here, article was discussed for just one day during which there were just two votes. 103.6.159.71 (talk) 17:11, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
