Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Native American scalps at Karl May Museum

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 no consensus to delete after extended discussion, and some improvement to the article. bd2412 T 03:59, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Native American scalps at Karl May Museum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

I nominated this for speedy with the rationale: Created by SPA account Quinn2425 which is in WP solely to promote Mark Worth and his causes; this is one of them, as the page below notes. This page is a near perfect example of abuse of WP:SOAP. We don't even have an article on Karl May Museum yet we have this. I added some WP:DUE content at Karl_May#Radebeul about this. I thought about merging and redirecting but this too just furthers the abuse of WP. We are not a soapbox - that is policy. It is also crappy editing, with embedded URLs and the like. Jytdog (talk) 19:03, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Shouldn't have a subarticle when the parent doesn't exist. This is covered (although it says 17 rather than 19 scalps) in Karl May#Radebeul. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:12, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:58, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:58, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. For the moment I'll just note that an article about the museum could exist: the German version is at de:Karl-May-Museum Radebeul. --Arxiloxos (talk) 05:29, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of things ~could~ exist. This page is industrial waste and is much an abuse of WP as an advertisement to buy some gadget. It should have been speedy deleted as spam but that was thwarted, so we need to shovel the shit out though this process. Jytdog (talk) 14:00, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Mark Worth page created and maintained by the same editor who created this has now been deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Worth; you can see the editor bludgeoned that page to no avail. Jytdog (talk) 23:54, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly, the Native American scalps at the museum are more notable than the museum itself, which may mean, this is the article:

• New York Times
• The Guardian
• South China Morning Post
• Deutsche Welle
• Project Muse
• Indian Country Today
• From ProQuest:
  • Request to return scalps tests Germans' love of the Old West, Eddy, Melissa. International New York Times; Paris [Paris]18 Aug 2014: 3. Striking this as it turns out to be the Paris version of the NYT New York version listed above. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:30, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Action of `der Wilde West' alive in Germany, Joy Schaleben Lewis. The Grand Rapids Press; Grand Rapids, Mich. [Grand Rapids, Mich]29 Mar 1992: C6.

I'd be happy to write the article correctly; it shouldn't take a day. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:19, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --Tarage (talk) 05:28, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• i worked this over, removing the blatant SOAP aspects (the skewed lead; the elaborate detail and extensive use of quotes which is a telltale sign of SOAP), along with factually incorrect or unsourced statements, things out of chronological order, and COPYVIO.

This is still here to publicize Worth's cause and I do not retract my nomination. I find the remark above Possibly, the Native American scalps at the museum are more notable than the museum itself, which may mean, this is the article. Sure, and the CIA "may" have planned and executed 9/11, and Hillary may have known more about Benghazi than she ever said. Jon Stewart had a great piece on this kind of "may"- or "if"-based "argument".

There are plenty of sources about the museum itself.

* interesting discussion of how the museum, which is in territory that used to be East Germany, refactored its displays as part of Soviet-block efforts to rally indigenous peoples against the US - Tóth, György Ferenc (2016). From Wounded Knee to Checkpoint Charlie: The Alliance for Sovereignty between American Indians and Central Europeans in the Late Cold War. SUNY Press. pp. 128ff. ISBN 9781438461236.

* New Yorker piece with some good discussion. Galchen, Rivka (2 April 2012). "Wild West Germany". The New Yorker.

* News of new director after a haiatus - "Radebeul: Christian Wacker wird Direktor im Karl-May-Museum". Mitteldeutsche Rundfunk (in German). January 11, 2018.

* Donation of some new artifacts - Schirmer, Nina (27 January 2018). "Wertvolle Raritäten fürs Karl-May-Museum". SZ-Online (in German).

• book by Jace Weaver (there is someone we should have an article on) that discusses the history of the museum at several points: Weaver, Jace (2001). Other Words: American Indian Literature, Law, and Culture. University of Oklahoma Press. ISBN 9780806133522.

There is lots more. The museum has been around for ca 100 years, for pete's sake.

This page is SOAP not to mention skewed RECENTISM.Jytdog (talk) 21:20, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the version before you beat me to removing the primary source letter (Letter from Cecil E. Pavlat Sr., Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians, to Karl May Museum, 10 March 2014), noting though that a good deal of what was in that letter is also mentioned in the reliable secondary sources. An option would have been to rewrite this content, and the over quotes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:32, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• continuing the above, book discussing a bit how Nazis appropriated the museum and native american symbols -- Penny, H. Glenn (2013). Kindred by Choice: Germans and American Indians Since 1800. UNC Press Books. ISBN 9781469607641.

• Keep - I didn't see the prior version, nor (given the comments), do I desire to go check, but in its current form it seems to have both sufficient notability and (were it to matter) sufficient quality to remain. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:02, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as the article has been significantly improved and now is referenced to pass WP:GNG Atlantic306 (talk) 16:57, 10 May 2018 (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.