Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of Caraquet


 * 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 redirect‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__ to Caraquet. History is preserved if someone wants to enact a merger following Nfitz' cleanup Star   Mississippi  01:14, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

History of Caraquet

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Historical nonsense moved disruptively to mainspace created by a paid contributor first, and then moved to mainspace a second time by an editor who should know better, who was informed about the scientific nonsense, and moved it into the mainspace without even tagging it. Highly irresponsible. Should be moved back to draftspace and completely checked and rewritten to be based on actual science. Fram (talk) 10:34, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Canada. Fram (talk) 10:34, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It was first moved to mainspace by AfC reviewer, who as far as I can tell is not a paid editor. And to be clear, the content you object to is the "claims of 13th c. Bretons in Canada" (from your edit summary)? –&#8239;Joe (talk) 13:47, 1 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I meant "proposed for the mainspace", I have struck and corrected. And I object to that, to the prehistory section which is very lengthy to end with, paraphrased, "but for none of this is there any evidence from Caraquet", and to the whole of the article, which seems to need thorough, thorough checking. For example, there are two sections with "1711" in the header. There is no mention of 1711 anywhere else... Source 2 is used 8 times to verify claims. Source 2 is this, and the description of the source in the article doesn't help. So this is an unusable source. The article is also extremely outdated and seems to be written in 2008(!), with a 2007 source for "There are still rumors of a complete reopening" of the hospital, or "By the end of the year, they plan to build a $15 million, 9,000 m2 appliance recycling plant. " (about 2008). Other "current" parts are also a decade out of date apparently, e.g. "The current city council was elected in the May 14, 2012, quadrennial election." The section header there, "21st century: between disappointment and hope" is a NPOV failure. Spot checking other sources, I get "Mentioned in the Vinland article on Wikipedia. This information seems to come from the book The Norse Atlantic Sagas, by Gwyn Jones (To be verified)." and many no longer available sources (due to the age of the original article) or unidentifiable sources ("Coup d'œil 2001-05-31 (in French)."), which seems to indicate that the paid translator has not checked any information or sources but blindly copied what was there. When spot checking reveals so many issues, the whole article needs thorough checking before being acceptable for the mainspace. Whether until then it is draftified, stubbified, deleted, ... can be decided here. Fram (talk) 14:19, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I will interject that I am indeed not a paid editor. I did not quite realize the nature of this article at the time and apologize for the mistake. I now understand to look out for this in future reviews. Garsh (talk) 15:05, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, that characterization was my mistake, sorry. Fram (talk) 15:14, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * If some parts of the article are poorly sourced or contested, why not just delete these rather than the whole article? 7804j (talk) 06:18, 2 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Delete: Article is just directly translated from the French article. I’m certain that it can be re-created manually so that information is properly sourced, cited, and verified. B3251 (talk) 23:09, 1 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Delete, if not draftified. It should probably have been left in draft, but since it is in the mainspace, keeping it seems dubious. "A giant's skeleton was discovered near the lighthouse on Caraquet Island in 1893 by the keeper's son" is not mainspace material, and does not give me confidence in the rest of the text. Lots looks like it might be plausible, but it definitely needs checking and many sources are not immediately accessible. CMD (talk) 08:55, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Who is going to do this "checking"? How are they supposed to do it if it's deleted? –&#8239;Joe (talk) 09:17, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * A Wikipedia editor? Same as any other process. Even if it is deleted and not draftified, any editor can see the sources at fr:Histoire de Caraquet. CMD (talk) 10:10, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * ...in French. So what you're basically saying is that editors aren't allowed to translate articles from other Wikipedias unless they also fix all outstanding problems with that article? I don't think there's any policy support for that. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 12:38, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * There is! It's WP:V, specifically WP:PROVEIT. The editor adding the information to en.wiki is responsible for it. WP:REDFLAG also applies here specifically, concerningly. CMD (talk) 13:02, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * What about the parts of the article that are verifiable (i.e. most of it)? They'll be deleted too. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 14:59, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't know which parts are verifiable, I have not checked the sources. If you have, please note the verified parts so the rest can be cleaned up. CMD (talk) 16:49, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep. The topic is clearly notable. All the problems brought up so far can be addressed through regular editing and last I checked WP:PRESERVE is still a policy. Most of the article is fine and certainly a lot better that what we had on this topic on enwiki before (Caraquet – much less and detailed almost completely unreferenced). Draftspace is optional and I don't see how moving it there is going to make it any more likely that these problems are fixed. Deleting it obviously won't. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 09:16, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The topic itself seems notable - but does it need an article? It's overly lengthy, and needs condensing and editing. Probably enough to merge with History. Will that ever happen though? The suggest that it should be deleted, and then the French version can be used to check the sources seems completely outside of policy. And ignores that the delete outcome is very unlikely, and would be at most a redirect to History, thus preserving the sources. I don't see how either a straight deletion of even dratification is a policy-based option. Nfitz (talk) 01:29, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I took an ax to some of the more grosser trivia - but there's still more. And the rest needs condensing, etc. Hopefully tight enough to merge. Nfitz (talk) 01:47, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @Nfitz I don't have a strong opinion between merge/keep, and I agree that statements that are unsourced/contested should be removed (thanks for starting that effort!). However, I feel like some of the cuts you applied may be a bit too broad. For example, in this edit you are removing aspects that you marked as "trivial", but I feel like a lot of these facts have encyclopedic relevance when it comes to a town of <5000 people (e.g., "During the move, the people of Caraquet mobilized to preserve their hospital. Numerous demonstrations took place, and a commission for the restoration of the emergency service named 'SOS Hôpital' (Action H shortly afterward) was formed" --> for a town with so few residents, a decision to close the hospital then subsequent protests against it seem like a relevant aspect of recent town history). As long as these are properly sourced, is there really a policy that would require removing this content? Otherwise I'd suggest adding back some of that (myself and the original author can review and make a proposed edit) 7804j (talk) 07:55, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Is it though? Some short-term debates decades ago about the appropriate level of health-care hardly seems encyclopaedic. This is endemic everywhere. Perhaps a sentence mentioning there is a hospital would suffice - though that wouldn't be in the history section. But that's my opinion. This kind of stuff seems to me more like what should go in a book, not Wikipedia. Nfitz (talk) 21:04, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Merge whatever is relevant, encyclopedically noteworthy, and properly verified in to Caraquet. Drmies (talk) 01:40, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Caraquet. I think this is better than a straight merge for solving the problems brought up by the delete !voters. Basically, a redirect will leave all of this in the page history, so anyone can then copy it over to the main article at Caraquet, if they are willing to properly verify it. The material no one cares to verify can stay in the history and not in mainspace. -- asilvering (talk) 18:45, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Can you point to which part of the deletion or verifiability policy supports removing fully referenced, encyclopaedic content because those references haven't be re-checked by unspecified persons? –&#8239;Joe (talk) 23:08, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is such a policy. I don't think verifiability is the issue with this article. I think the issue is encyclopaedic content. That a cinema closed years ago, or two decades ago there was a proposed reduction in hospital hours that didn't happen, isn't encyclopaedic. Nfitz (talk) 23:51, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @Joe Roe, WP:V says The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material. This is a core policy. The other complaints in this AfD are about whether the material is encyclopedically relevant or not. There is no one arguing for the usual reason for deletion, ie a lack of notability; basically, people are calling for a WP:TNT delete. Like you, I don't think that's necessary or even called for. -- asilvering (talk) 01:02, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Caraquet. I think Asilvering is on the right path. No prejudice on moving some of the most encyclopaedic content there. And maybe in the future, spawning it off to to this article, once it's well written. At the same time, that article already has a surprisingly lengthy section, given there's a sub-article. And much of Caraquet isn't about the town, but would be better served in other articles. You don't need paragraphs of regional and Acadian history in an article about a small town. See also WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Nfitz (talk) 00:02, 9 July 2024 (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.