Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elbst


 * 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 delete. Apart from the fact that nobody except the creator of the article supports keeping, none of the reasons given for keeping are in line with Wikipedia policy. We have, for example the fact that the subject was referred to by an allegedly notable person (irrelevant whether true or not), the fact that there is an article on the subject in German Wikipedia. We are also told other things, such as that the article does not satisfy any of the speedy deletion criteria, but that is presumably precisely why it is at a deletion discussion, rather than having been speedily deleted. Similar considerations apply to other comments form the creator of the article. JBW (talk) 22:01, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Elbst

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The article does not meet WP:GNG and does not present encyclopedic information WP:INDISCRIMINATE.  // Timothy ::  talk  13:24, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete I have completely rewritten the article, and based it on existing sources. I have performed an extensive search for all the sources mentioned in contemporary sources and included what I have found on the talk page. The contemporary sources are mostly based on what Renward Cysat (1545–1614) and later his son Johann (1587–1657), wrote about the regional folklore in the region around Lucerne in the canton of Uri. The modern sources are all compilations and contain no new research at all. The older, 19th century sources are also referencing Cysat again. The exception appears to be de:Josef Müller (Pfarrer) who did speak to some of the locals and includes some of their testimony in his book, Sagen aus Uri: aus dem volksmunde gesammelt. That text is at I wouldn't mind at all if this article got deleted, I mostly rewrote it to show that the first version of this article is NOT based on the sources cited, as claimed but its creator, but on another source, that I have identified as Eberhardt (2002), which is the source of the very mistaken claim that "The word Elbst is said to have it's origin from the German word "albiz" meaning "swan". That is utter nonsense. Vexations (talk) 14:23, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * An explanation for the claim about the source used for the etymology of "Elbst" is provided here. It's supposed to have been That source was never in the article, and doesn't mention Elbst. Vexations (talk) 21:14, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:03, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:03, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:03, 1 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Author request, I am relying the request of the author that this be draftified.-- Eostrix  (&#x1F989; hoot hoot&#x1F989;) 07:13, 5 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep


 * i)Notability
 * The Original referrer of the Elbst, Renward Cysat is a notable person, his book is notable, thus the creature while being discussed in the same book while having 'significant coverage', multiple reliable secondary sources which are 'independent of the subject', is notable, fulfilling WP:GNG and WP:N. (also in same way, Müller and  C. Kohlrusch are notable along with their works


 * ii) WP:INDISCRIMINATE
 * The article is neither any of the 'Summary-only descriptions of works', 'Lyrics databases', 'Excessive listings of unexplained statistics' or 'Exhaustive logs of software updates' thus not violating WP:INDISCRIMINATE.


 * iii) WP:BEFORE
 * Also, in spite of WP:BEFORE C. being very much pertinent, the AfD nomination was made.


 * iv) Alternative of Deletion
 * The artcile does not violate any 14 points mentioned in WP:DEL-REASON or any of G1-G14 or A1-A11 per WP:CSD. Further per WP:NOTBUILT, since the article has been in the process of improvement, also per WP:DEL, it should be kept.


 * v) Good Faith and New Comer
 * Besides I request to consider WP:FAITH and WP:DBN.


 * vi) Page in Deutschte Wikipedia
 * There is a page in Deutche Wikipedia about Elbst since 2007, hence this proves the justification for its inclusion.


 * Comment: I have already requested the article to be moved to draftspace since in the mean time I could not execute the planned enrichment of the article due to the reigning exigent situation, otherwsise there would have been no requirement for this debate. AranyaPathak (talk) 15:17, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 23:53, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment if someone finds a good home I'd vote to merge it there. Troll Control (talk) 10:56, 9 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete per Vexations. If they reviewed the non-English sources, wrote an entirely new article, and still think it should be deleted, I defer to them. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:27, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment The page Elbst has recently undergone massive changes and is also under the process of continuous improvement. A reconsideration regarding deletion decision under present situation is highly appreciated. --AranyaPathak (talk) 15:07, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I still think it should be deleted. Adding sources like these doesn't help:
 * http://www.kartengeschichte.ch/ch/summaries/e02c.html doesn't mention Elbst or Seelisberg
 * https://staatsarchiv.lu.ch/schaufenster/karten_stadtansichten/kantonskarte_cysat is a gorgeous map, but doesn't even show where Seelisberg is, (it would be to the left of Beckenried, the map is oriented south up) Vexations (talk) 16:10, 12 August 2020 (UTC)


 * 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.