Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Native American Influence on the Environment


 * 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 --Bubba hotep 20:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Native American Influence on the Environment

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

While the article appears to be sourced, it is really an essay or actually something like Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position. While I don't doubt that an interesting article could be made bearing this title, this version of it is so far removed from what we'd want to construct that we might as well delete it. Pascal.Tesson 02:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Reading this article, I was struck that it reads more more like an original paper than an encyclopedia article. Both are similar (citations, relatively neutral and professional tone) and there's that line that's crossed when you're taking various sources and using them to make some kind of an original argument not found in those sources alone. The argument here just seems to be implied, but it's such a blatantly obvious implication that it's hard to say it isn't there. That was just the gist that I got... it's hard to classify this as definently being original research, because whoever created this seems to have been pretty careful, but I would lean towards saying it is. Funny comment on the article's talk page, by the way. Or at least I thought so. --W.marsh 02:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that comment was priceless although it felt kind of weird citing it in my deletion rationale. But still, the fact that an anonymous reader bothered to leave it is pretty indicative that the article makes Wikipedia look foolish. Pascal.Tesson 03:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep The article could stand some rewritting, and I am sure someone will place the appropriate tag on it soon.  I did a quick reference check and found this Whether or not prehistoric Native Americans were a significant ecological factor has been the subject of intense debate among generations of ecologists. During the latter half of the twentieth century, the pendulum of opinion has swung from the belief that American Indians had no influence on the composition and structure of plant and animal communities to the assertion that they were responsible for destruction of native habitats through over-exploitation of natural resources and widespread use of fire. Prehistoric Native Americans and Ecological Change it is part of a book for $99.00 (American) on the Cambridge Catalog.  I would say that shows notability of the concept.  I also listed this as a reference on the page, and placed an unsigned note on the talk page entry.  Jeepday 03:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Like I said, I can imagine an interesting article with this title and this is not realy the issue. However, the present article would need such a fundamental rewrite that I'm not sure I see a better option than starting over. Pascal.Tesson 03:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. The article now does read like someone's school paper, and suffers from vagueness and conclusory opinions in places.  The subject seems eminently worthy, though, and the text now there is far from worthless; it's a good start that surely could be improved on.  I'd expect a fuller treatment to include such things as the apparent collapse of the Clovis culture and its possible relationship to late Pleistocene extinctions, to the use of Native Americans as symbols to promote ecological views in the 1960s and 1970s. - Smerdis of Tlön 03:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as an original research essay that is in clear violation of WP:SYN. I'm not saying that the position is wrong or that it lacks in quality but wikipedia in not the place to host these things. NeoFreak 06:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I reread the article, I did find that the last paragraph Post European Conolization and Beyond... appeared to be have issues with WP:NOT (and WP:SYN} so I removed it.  The rest of the article appears to be expansion of the published train of thought I found and posted above and has references through out.  We have established that the concept is published and that the article is referenced.  I think at this point to make an argument for WP:OR or WP:SYN you would have have something showing a conflict between the references and article(where is the policy for challenging references?).   Per WP:V (and ignoring the whole WP:ATT combo thing) The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" and material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source.  Jeepday 12:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Regrettable Delete - Good article. But fails WP:OR and reads like a term paper. --Bryson 14:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, fails WP:NOR. For pity's sake, it doesn't matter how well written it is or how "worthy" the subject matter, it's original research and an essay, pure and simple, and that's the 800-lb elephant making any vote to Keep inconceivable.  There are many, many places where such an essay would be welcome and pertinent; Wikipedia is not one of them.  RGTraynor 17:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Nicely written and perhaps an interesting subject but that does not alleviate the WP:OR concerns.  A r k y a n  &#149; (talk) 18:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Very weak delete It's the kind of thing there really should be an article on, but at the moment it seems to either be uncited or original research - this is the kind of thing I'd normally try to tidy up myself but in this case I know nothing on the subject. -  Irides centi   (talk to me!)  22:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * * There is indeed something to this subject . This article, however, is WP:OR and WP:SYN to the Nth degree. Delete- CosmicPenguin (Talk) 03:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:OR and WP:SYN. Ford MF 07:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and rewrite. Worthy, notable topic. Ab e g92 contribs 10:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment nobody is really questionning the topic's value but how are we supposed to rewrite this exactly? It requires such a fundamental rewrite that we might as well delete the whole thing.Pascal.Tesson 11:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep - It doesn't seem to need so fundamental of a rewrite. A new lead and some OR/SYN stuff removed, maybe, but it seems workable.  I'm not sure about the title, though (besides non-standard capitalization). Smmurphy(Talk) 03:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Obviously, not a good article, but this is not OR.Biophys 03:24, 5 April 2007 (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.