Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pioneers of Alaska


 * 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   keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:19, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Pioneers of Alaska

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is a one-sentence article with one reference (to the organization's own website) which returns a broken link. No substantial edit (more than adding categories) has been made to it in over a year, indicating the situation is not likely to improve anytime soon. In exercising due caution prior to submitting this entry, I searched the Google News archives for the 100 year period from Jan. 1, 1920 to Jan. 1, 2013 ] and found no mention of this organization, which raises serious question as to its notability. DocumentError (talk) 01:36, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2013 December 27.  — cyberbot I  Notify Online 01:52, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: Here is the correct link. הסרפד  (call me Hasirpad) 02:11, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment I have added possible references to the talk page. I will copy them to the AFD talk page shortly. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  02:16, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep or Delete without prejudice to re-creation ("soft delete") - topic may be be notable but more research is required. Even if notable, it may be better to have no article than a 1-line stub.  It may be better to write a combined article about late 19th-century/early-20th century civic organizations in Alaska, the Yukon territory, and surrounding areas.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  02:16, 27 December 2013 (UTC)  Strong keep in light of work done so far.  Consider an early close as "keep" if it starts WP:SNOWing.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  08:24, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Another comment: searching Google Books, however, produces much more promising results. Search, for example, "Grand Igloo"— a phrase unique to this organization. See also .  הסרפד  (call me Hasirpad) 02:20, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The existence of references somewhere, can't be used as justification for the permanence of a one-sentence Wikipedia article. If we want to delete this for being non-encyclopedic, instead of non-notable, that's fine. Obviously this article in its current iteration is unacceptable and there appears to be no effort underway or imminent to bring it up to some minimum standard of content, composition and citation. DocumentError (talk) 02:23, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Since when are stubs deleted? An article is deleted only if it either its subject is unworthy of encyclopedia (by being non-notable) or its text is problematic, when WP:TNT is applied. A one-line well formatted stub, if it can be referenced, has no reason not to exist. הסרפד  (call me Hasirpad) 03:12, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Correct, this is an unworthy subject. DocumentError (talk) 03:15, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You distinguish "notable" from "encyclopedic" subjects. For the purposes of Wikipedia, what is the difference? הסרפד  (call me Hasirpad) 03:24, 27 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. Google News Archive doesn't really work anymore (see Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 44 and Template talk:Find sources multi), so I wouldn't draw any conclusions from the absence of search results. Here's one interesting article from 1919 .  A HighBeam search turns up some results, including this one from 2012 noting that the organization's building in Cordova was being added to the NRHP.  The nominator is flatly wrong to assert that an article should be deleted because it's currently sketchy: that's how articles often get started here. We improve, not delete, such topics. --Arxiloxos (talk) 02:30, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The Google News search was a last ditch attempt by me to attempt to establish notability prior to nomination and is acceptable to that end. It was not an exhaustive attempt to source an entry, which is the responsibility of the creating editor. I agree "we improve, not delete" - so, are you going to improve this one? Because no one has substantively touched it in more than a year. A patently unacceptable article cannot be maintained in the hope that eventually, someone, maybe might improve it. This article passed an AfD review a couple years ago on that exact hope. Since then, it has still not managed to break the 1-sentence barrier. In consideration of the fact that the hopes of the first AfD that the article would improve have collapsed, this article needs to be deleted in the absence of a strategy for improvement. Hope is not a strategy. DocumentError (talk) 02:51, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Where is the old AFD? davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  03:05, 27 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep I found significant coverage in a book called Memoirs of a Yukon Priest, and a book called Alaska Curiosities: Quirky Characters, Roadside Oddities & Other Offbeat Stuff. The Alaska Historical Commission published a book called Pioneers of Alaska 1900-1970 Project about the group's membership. The group is mentioned in the Encyclopedia of Local History. Its publications are cited twice in Alaska History: An Annotated Bibliography. A book the group published is discussed in Alaska Mining History: A Source Document. Alaska's Digital Archives contains 34 documents about the group, some of which could be used to expand the article. I found an article called Women gain an equal role in Pioneers of Alaska in the Peninsula Clarion, with significant coverage of the group. I found an article called 2011 Pioneers of Alaska regents both history fans in the Juneau Empire. I think that should suffice.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  03:53, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed - that will suffice! So you're volunteering to update the article then? (Or is the plan to keep these voluminous sources to ourselves in the AfD archives for another 2 years until it gets re-nominated?) DocumentError (talk) 04:06, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Here's a friendly suggestion, : I handed you, the nominator who claimed the topic wasn't notable, a big stack of reliable sources on a platter. Why don't you expand the article and withdraw the nomination? If you don't expand it, I will. But please remember that AfD is not cleanup, and I don't operate an "edit on demand" service for you or anyone else. I am a volunteer.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  04:15, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I, also, do not operate an "edit on demand" service. I have no interest in this topic and no plan to expand it, irrespective of how many sources are provided here or elsewhere. This is the underlying issue, per my OP nom; this 13-word article has been untouched since it was created years ago. Its only cited source is to org's own website. It cannot languish in suspended animation because we hope some unknown person will, at some unknown point in the undetermined future, bring it up to a minimum standard of quality. After three years in Narnia it either needs to be deleted or improved. Wikipedia is not a hoarder's den or a place to pack-rat one sentence acknowledgments that organizations exist. Do you plan to improve it, or do you know someone who will? If not, why don't you agree with me to delete it and welcome its recreation in the future, as per davidwr's suggestion? DocumentError (talk) 05:14, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * This is your personal view (expressed on other recent AfD's, I believe), but not Wikipedia's policy on deletion. WP:NOTCLEANUP addresses your belief exactly. הסרפד  (call me Hasirpad) 05:35, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * As I stated previously, I will expand the article since you decline to do so. I have expanded and referenced hundreds of articles on notable topics and will do the same for this one. I am an encyclopedist not an aggressive deletionist. On the broader philosophical point, we simply don't delete stubs about notable topics, nor do we delete articles just because they haven't been edited in a while. I will recommend keeping articles about notable topics 100% of the time. There is no rush and there are no deadlines. However, if I conclude that a topic isn't notable, I am happy to see the article deleted.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  05:44, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Great! In response to Cullen328's magnanimous offer, I request, as nominator, further action on this AfD be tabled for one week to give editor an opportunity to work on article. If a reviewing admin would like to close it for ease of bookkeeping, that's fine, too. I can just manually check back. As for your "broader philosophical point," [sic] I'll have to defer to you on this type of erudition. I'm not in AfD to muse about the epistemology of 13-word articles. I'm here to apply common sense solutions to common sense problems concerning the real-world comprehensibility of WP, as per sentence six of the introduction of WP:PG. On behalf of those of us whose only tool is a hammer, I thank you for your service in offering a theoretical basis for the morality and ethics of our actions. DocumentError (talk) 06:01, 27 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep First off, as previously alluded to, how is this a 2nd nomination when we're not seeing any evidence of a 1st nomination? I figured out years ago that how an article is constructed often determines what attention it attracts, which is the only reason I can see for this AfD.  In the case of this article, it was created as a coatrack to another article on some random NRHP listing, by an editor with a years-long history of conflict with other NRHP regulars over mass-creating content of dubious value.  This same editor assessed the article as low importance for WP:ALASKA, when this is really a high importance topic for that project.  To echo Cullen's comments, I have neither the time nor the inclination to clean up everyone's messes for them.  As to the organization itself, the Pioneers have existed for over a century, have sponsored numerous works related to chronicling Alaska history (mostly books, though here in Fairbanks they also operate a museum), and held significant political sway throughout Alaska until about 25 or 30 years ago (and still do in parts of Alaska; the story of the numerous name changes of Pioneer Park has not been fully told, but what has been told offers insight as to the group's influence).  As also referred to above, the Pioneers are one of many fraternal organizations to emerge from mining camps and towns, but it's the only one of those organizations which is still going strong today. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions  05:58, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * With the exception of RadioKAOS' "Keep" note, I agree with all of his other points through the sentence that ends "...mass-creating content of dubious value" and am neutral on everything after that. Fortunately Cullen328 has generously offered to fix all the issues with this article forthwith and I am glad this AfD will result in improvement of WP, even if it did not result in an article deletion. DocumentError (talk) 06:24, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I have started expanding the article, and have added three reliable, independent sources so far.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  07:02, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Already a 100% improvement! DocumentError (talk) 07:21, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 27 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment - For future benefit, I have moved this AFD to the correct title as there is no record of a previous nomination. As it is likely to be snow kept, this will make things easier on everyone. I believe I have cleaned up properly, but please let me know if I missed anything. -- &#124;  Uncle Milty  &#124;  talk  &#124;  19:25, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. The sources cited above demonstrate notability.James500 (talk) 23:06, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. Agreed. More documentation needed, but decidedly a notable organization. Along the lines of the Society of California Pioneers. BrianThibodeaux (talk) 00:12, 29 December 2013 (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.