Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Privy digging


 * 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. causa sui (talk) 17:46, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Privy digging

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This is an incomprehensible, repetitive, poorly written, weird point of view, self-sourced article with a smattering of information that could also be called amateur archeology or scavenging. Essentially the pet topic of a single editor who frequents this and similar articles, one of which is also nominated here. The links in and out are to and from other articles owned by the same person on the same topic. The owner of this topic should find a personal blog for this theory about digging up outhouse holes. I like to saw logs! (talk) 06:52, 21 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep The topic is notable both as a matter of general archeology (Archaeologists dig up Shakespeare's 'cesspit') and as a particular American enthusiasm (The Urban Treasure Hunter).  There are amusing parallels with our work here at AFD.  Much of what one finds is dirt and dross but the occasional treasure or diamond-in-the-rough makes the activity worthwhile. Warden (talk) 08:26, 21 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge - bit of a WP:Walled Garden (excuse the pun), eh? The article contains interesting facts but is too long and has very few citations: WP:ESSAY. This and Historical digging need to be considered together with Dump digging - probably all three need to be merged into one, much shorter, fully-sourced article.Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:35, 21 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge as above. Too much OR here. Nwlaw63 (talk) 14:36, 21 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Click the Google news archive search at the top of the AFD. I find significant coverage in reliable sources straight away.  The New York Times  and Times-Union  have articles about this topic.   D r e a m Focus  16:39, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Yes, the article is something of an essay, but the topic is a notable part of archeology and can be improved with the many references available."Too long?" "Includes original research?" Use the edit button. That is why we put it on each article. Edison (talk) 20:33, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, of course you're right, privies have their fascinations, and even almost-entirely-unreferenced articles can have their bottoms wiped. Only thing is, we'd have to chop 98% of the article; and the rest is really just an amateur attempt at Archaeology so a Merge is the only realistic alternative to Delete - and be aware there are THREE similar, overlapping, WP:OR-dense WP:ESSAYs on closely-related topics (read: the same stuff).


 * So (please take a quick look), we have Dump digging and Historical digging and Privy digging to merge together, and then we most likely need to merge this into one of the carefully-written articles on Archaeology. Really want to keep all three? I doubt it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:32, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * If they get coverage on their own, then yes. The references I found indicate Privy digging in fact does.   D r e a m Focus  07:41, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I would delete "Historical digging" as a vague topic overlapping Dump digging and Historical digging and keep the latter two, which are both actually notable parts of archeology. Edison (talk) 16:19, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment -- This seems to be about a variety of poor quality amateur archaeology, akin to treasure hunting. Several of the holes in photos appear to be deeper than is safe.  Nothing is said about the importance of recording and publihshing the results of investigations.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:40, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Per the coverage found by Dream Focus. There appears to be a significant amount of coverage in reliable third party sources establishing the subject's notability. Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)  22:29, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Comments: Since I am the one who started this AfD, I wanted to reiterate what Chiswick Chap said... there are three of these articles purporting to be about amateur archeology, all of which are essays that I would, at minimum, hack down to a few paragraphs in total. In short this article may have a fine, upstanding basis for an article, but in practice it is rambling mess. I know what can happen when I am an expert on a topic... I tend to ramble. But these rambling articles need to meet a stern and serious attempt at curtailing the fluff and keeping the few gems of encyclopedic content. In other words this article is like a pit full of worthless garbage with three unique bottles of interest hidden. I tire quickly of sorting through someone else's garbage; however, the irony tastes especially keen given this article's topic.

One of the unfortunate problems is that there is not a respectable article about archeology to which these gems might be set into without a lot of cleaning, polishing, and (metaphorically speaking) hauling off a lot of night soil. I like to saw logs! (talk) 04:27, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, User:Alpha Quadrant may be right, there are a few gems in the THREE ARTICLES, and there are some decent references out there on Google. But I like to saw logs! is right on the amount of WP:OR garbage in all three articles, which still read as WP:ESSAYs.


 * I suspect we need to WP:TNT the privy and its two companions, and start over:
 * nobody has established that they are separate topics. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:45, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


 * (Aside) Those were my comments both times, Mr. Chap. I made it more obvious with a quick line break. I like to saw logs! (talk) 04:24, 24 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I would like anyone to establish that the three articles discuss separate topics. Since (1) the same pictures and (2) the same editors and (3) the same rambling and (4) the same original content abound in all three articles, can we just start over? I like to saw logs! (talk) 04:24, 24 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment: If the decision is to keep, I will NOT start an article about Finding Hidden Treasures in Household Drains. I will start three of them... One about finding them in P traps, one about finding them with a Roto-Rooter, and one about finding stuff in a sewage pump. I like to saw logs! (talk) 05:52, 24 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Down here in Chiswick we often find Hidden Treasures Digging Down By the River. Or Digging By the Roadside. Or Digging Under Garden Compost Heaps. Egad! Redlinks! Quick, Dig Another Three Articles !!! Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:20, 24 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Although related, historical digging and privy digging are separate topics. And both of them are different from archaeology. Privy Digging Essentials   12:55, 25 November 2011  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Themischr (talk • contribs)


 * Themischr - account created today - has only edited Privy digging, Historical digging
 * Language used in Themischr's comment very similar to today's comment on Privy digging by User:Consultant09
 * Could this be a WP:SOCKPUPPET?


 * I only have one user account and did not create a WP:SOCKPUPPET. Working to add citations and relevant information to this article.  Consultant09 (talk) 06:16, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep This article has potential, and additional information and editing can be done to improve its quality. The creation of Wikipedia articles is a process and with further effort this can be a valuable addition.  This topic has a significant amount of coverage in numerous reliable third party sources in the form of books, articles, websites, and documentation and can be further cited. Consultant09 (talk) 06:16, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That may or may not be true, but it does not address the fact that we have here an article (indeed, a family of overlapping articles) that nearly entirely lack citations, are long, structureless, and rambling. They would be better deleted (WP:TNT) (as a family) and recreated (as a single article or brief section in another article such as Archaeology) with a defined structure and a full set of citations from the start. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:44, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * *Keep Although this article needs more citations, it represents a significant contribution. It makes no sense for Wikipedia to delete it, since individuals looking to be informed for this activity need a quick review that is readily available online.  Themischr (talk) 16:56, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Wikipedia is a work in progress, with an emphasis on 'progress' and arguably many of the works therein could be construed as 'a family of overlapping articles', to address the misleading comments above. Moreover, just because someone makes the superficial connection that overlap exists, does not automatically negate an articles importance, its validity or authenticity and so on.  As a primary contributing author and someone very familiar with the overall facts and complexities involved, I look forward to improving the article further.Olesachem (talk) 19:02, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep There is clearly sufficient specific content -- and references to keep. This is the sort of work we should be strongly encouraging, not listing for deletion. This is the sort of article that is important to keep, much more important than any borderline notable academic or porn actor.  there should be a very large literature, and the possibility of links with many Wikipedia locality articles.  Deleting  this would show  a remarkably strange conception of the purpose of Wikipedia.  DGG ( talk ) 03:07, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * *Keep "There is clearly sufficient specific content -- and references to keep. This is the sort of work we should be strongly encouraging, not listing for deletion."  Arguably one of the more productive, sensible and democratic comments made this month regarding the privy digging article.  There’s always room for improvement and as a primary contributor and someone who has worked extensively in this field, along with historical digging, dump digging, and a wide variety of hands on landfill research over the course of more than 2 decades, I look forward to working together to improve this article on all levels.Olesachem (talk) 20:40, 28 November 2011 (UTC)Olesachem (talk) 20:42, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


 * SPI comment: the strong smell of sock puppetry overwhelms that of the topic. I have filed an SPI, and think that a relist is in order until the matter is settled. Drmies (talk) 17:28, 30 November 2011 (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.