Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skin-walker


 * 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 I am closing this as no consensus to delete. The arguments based respecting a custom are not compatible with our projects goals, just as we show depictions of Muhammad in relevant articles our project cannot be limited by the rules of various religions and belief systems. The arguments regarding sourcing were far more policy based, however other people were able to demonstrate sources. While there is disagreement on the quality of these sources those saying the sources were not adequate did not gain consensus. Despite this closure I want to emphasise that this article is subject to WP:V and WP:DUE and should be edited accordingly, no prejudice for another AfD once the article has had more work put into it. HighInBC 14:45, 1 May 2016 (UTC)


 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

On tumblr there are many complaints from the Diné about J.K Rowling's recent story using Skin-walkers. They say it's a secret tradition, you're not even supposed to mention the Skin-walker's name. They've shamed her for consulting Wikipedia for her story (and not them, who would have advised her to never use skin-walkers). At least one person has called out the Diné community for allowing an article of a secret aspect of their religion to be on a site based on public knowledge.

Since no one else has done it since then, I'm nominating this article for deletion; out of respect for the Diné people and Wikipedia's integrity.

I suggest that we give a small mention to skin-walkers on the article for Navajo mythology, and leave it at that.Artheartsoul1 (talk) 21:04, 23 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Merge and Redirect - I recently attempted cleanup up on this article, but both it, and the related article, Witch (Navajo) are woefully unsourced and, given the cultural secrecy here, probably cannot be sourced to WP:RS standards. The only sourced content to speak of in Witch (Navajo) is already covered in Navajo ethnobotany. I would suggest taking the tiny bit of useable content here and at Witch (Navajo), putting it into Navajo (probably as a new sub-section under Navajo or Navajo, and turning both of these pages into redirects to Navajo. - Co rb ie V    ☊ ☼ 21:38, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with this. I wouldn't know which content is usable, both for accuracy and cultural sensitivity reasons. (I am not Diné.) However, I suggest the section instead be named Navajo. Culture is far too broad and spiritually is vaguely racist (religion seems to become spirituality once Native Americans do it.)Artheartsoul1 (talk) 22:20, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Whether the subsection is called "religion", "spiritual beliefs", "spirituality", or something else, I think it should be as a subset under "culture". I'm not sure how soon I can get to it, but as soon as I have the time I can continue the cleanup process I started. If there's anything I'm unsure of, I know who to ping. - Co rb ie V    ☊ ☼ 04:15, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * KEEP Wikipedia is not WP:CENSORED. The comparison with Rowling's story is also irrelevant since her actions amount to for profit, cultural appropriation, unlike Wikipedia which is trying to preserve this tradition for future generations. Avoid reading about the subject and mentioning it in order remain unharmed by those beings. Non believers have the right to know about it.--Catlemur (talk) 13:04, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Catlemur, so far the consensus is to keep what can be sourced to WP:RS standards. But that doesn't leave enough for a standalone article, so we're talking about merging it into the main article. - Co rb ie V    ☊ ☼ 16:13, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * "KEEP" Warrants it own article! Problems with the article can be solved by knowledgeable editors working on perfecting the article. Given the pop culture interest it will require dedicated editors to sort out what's authentic Navajo and what's Hollywood. Sorting out pop culture ideas versus authentic traditional ideas happens in many wikipedia articles. In my opinion this warrants its own article and the article ought start with authentic Navajo ideas and then proceed to cover the pop culture appropriations of the concept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tjc (talk • contribs) 05:21, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with Tjc. Keep the article even if it is in a miserable state.--Catlemur (talk) 09:27, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep it. Clean it up. But keep it. We're not in the business of censorship...right? Methychroma (talk) 01:36, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep AFD is not clean up. Tumblr complaints are not a basis for deletion. Merger discussions can be done on the talk page not at AFD. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:41, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge with Navajo and redirect, as explained by CorbieVreccan. I believe that this is the best solution for this situation.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   01:52, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Update I've added some actual sources to the article. According to this work by a professor at Wheaton College, skinwalkers can transform themselves into (and are thus distinct from) Navajo witches so it seems odd to merge the content together. I fully expect a lot of "no, that's not really Navajo lore" arguments but there are actual reliable sources on the subject. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:13, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Pop culture and tourism guides to "weird" phenomena are not WP:RS for Navajo religion. To include Tony Hillerman's fiction would be undue weight. As for your removal of the suggestion for a merge discussion, if you don't understand the connection... ETA: Additionally, the Coale source is primarily a discussion of Hillerman. -  Co rb ie V    ☊ ☼ 03:20, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not a source about Hillerman's fiction, it's an academic source about the inaccuracy of Hillerman's fiction within the context of critical race theory. An academic who writes about Bela Lugosi portrayal of Dracula being inaccurate in the context of actual mythology can still be a reliable source about the mythology. In the same context, a source about Hillerman's fiction being an inaccurate portrayal of skinwalkers can still be accurate about the Navajo concept. The sources don't even differ from what is put there so what is the actual dispute here? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:45, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Is the Rowling concerns expressed here? The sources seem to a blog post and Twitter comments which interestingly express the same "Navajo aren't magical people" issues that Coale had. There's no academic sources on the matter referenced there unfortunately. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:04, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Leaving social media aside, the concerns raised by the nom - cultural misrepresentation and misinformation - are valid to WP. Last I checked there was coverage of the Rowling situation in about six mainstream, international media outlets. Al Jazeera and Huffpost come to mind, as well as many pieces in Native media that got less exposure. But the WP articles we're discussing here were not up to WP standards long before the Rowling situation. They would need this discussion and cleanup with or without that recent development. - Co rb ie V    ☊ ☼ 17:13, 2 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Merge. There are not enough adequate published sources to sustain this article. Wikipedia does not allow original research, so until more academic literature covers this subject, it should not be fluffed up with conjection. Yuchitown (talk) 07:38, 3 April 2016 (UTC)Yuchitown
 * Keep Wikipedia is not Censored. It doesn't matter it is a secret tradition or what tumblr thinks, the topic is worthy enough to warrant its own article. Rahul Text me 13:36, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * KEEP As above, Wikipedia is not WP:CENSORED. If we deleted pages at the request of religious minorities, there would be many important subjects left uncovered. This page is no exception. Bobstay (talk) 11:59, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Strong keep The topic easily meets notability standards. Also as it's been stated Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. TUmblr being up in arms about it is hardly a reason for deletion, and to be honest that falls under WP:IDONTLIKEIT. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:02, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry to repeat myself here, but... The nom did themselves no favors by bringing tumblr into this. But I ask Wikipedians to ignore what's happening on tumblr, or any social media, and instead pay attention to WP policy and the actual state of the articles we discuss here. Only content that is sourced to WP:RS standards can stay on the 'pedia. Thinking that this is about who does and doesn't like stuff is not actually the issue as far as those of us who work on these articles are concerned. - Co rb ie V    ☊ ☼ 00:02, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Update After cleanup and merges on some of the related articles that were also in bad shape, the only article content sourced to WP:RS standards is now duplicated at Witchcraft. The two sentences in Skin-walker that are not duplicated there are sourced to a popular press book of questionable reliability. If people really want those two sentences added over at Witchcraft, it wouldn't harm the article. But having this in two places is unnecessary duplication. -  Co rb ie V    ☊ ☼ 23:55, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * KEEP The primary motivation for removal appears to be religious censorship. The comparison to Scientology seems apt. "Cultural Mysteries" are granted no more protection than any other Trade Secrets once disclosed, and perhaps less; furthermore, Wikipedia does not appear to have policies supporting removal of either. In contrast, WP:CENSORED would appear to argue against such removal. While I have some abstract sympathy for the unhappy Diné, they have neither right nor power to put knowledge of these stories entirely back into the shadows. Some of those arguing against furthermore expressly state that this is a subject considered important by the culture, which would argue against removal. The limited number of reliable anthropological non-fiction sources does seem something that deserves some attention, but this is better handled by adding more information from and references to the public sources. Abb3w (talk) 20:28, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I would like to remind everyone that this isn't about tumblr complaints. This is about complaints from the source of this mythology over this information being public. Random people DO NOT have the "right" to learn about non-harmful cultural secrets. While you may consider it as mere "knowledge", this is deeply important to the people. It's worth noting that while many Wikipedians probably value knowledge as a moral value, these people value it from a different standpoint.

Knowledge is power, after all.

Further more, there is a HUGE history of using said information for their own selfish purposes. Claiming that learning "for knowledge's sake" is unrealistic and will be viewed as selfish and imposing by the people of this religion. Which is why they're complaining. Artheartsoul1 (talk) 07:28, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but that goes directly against WP:NOTCENSORED. "Wikipedia will not remove information or images concerning an organization merely because that organization's rules or traditions forbid display of such information online. Such restrictions do not apply to Wikipedia, because Wikipedia is not a member of the organization."  By your reasoning, we also need to almost all articles on Scientology doctrine (the doctrine is not what's harmful about them, but that's either the first or second thing they'd say they want removed).  Honestly, if you hadn't repeated this reasoning, I probably would have gone looking for dinner instead of sources.  Also, you said at the beginning that you would be OK with "a small mention to skin-walkers on the article for Navajo mythology," which kinda defeats the point of not making the information public.
 * As for the argument "knowledge is power," that is all the more reason to make the information public. Whether or not skinwalkers exist, they form the mythic basis for some cultural traditions and so are required to understand those traditions and better follow and respect those traditions.  Of course, if skinwalkers are real, then it would only be a public service to maintain and improve the article.
 * As for cultural appropriation, as much as I hate cultural appropriation, Wikipedia can't stop it. Tons of fantasy books have already been written, based more on fantasy than on historical beliefs, and there's demand for that literature.  If we were to delete the article, then anyone curious about skinwalkers will have to turn to appropriating literature.  But if we maintain and improve the article, then they will be able to read about the actual beliefs in their proper context -- the mythology of a people instead of the caricatures of stereotypes.  Ian.thomson (talk) 09:11, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Brady, Morgan, and Walsh undeniably meet WP:RS and so bring the subject to WP:GNG, so all that's left is to acquire the sources and rewrite the article according to that information. I have only been able to access Salzman, which actually indicates that the Diné do discuss this believe in surveys (31% of Diné surveyed explained that it is rude to point at someone unless you're pointing out a Skinwalker). Reviews of Brady did not say that it was so much that they didn't want the information to never be made public, but that they felt that a written copy of one account does not adequately represent the variations in the tradition as orally passed down by many, many people. In effect, the problem is not "this information should never be public," but "the sample size is too small." Ian.thomson (talk) 09:11, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Glancing over Google books and Jstor for about ten minutes, the following leads came up:
 * Please take your Orwellian rhetoric off this website. It directly breaks several well established rules such as WP:NOTCENSORED.--Catlemur (talk) 15:23, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I think "OP" should take a look at WP:ATA.  Rahul Text me 09:04, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry User:Artheartsoul1, but you have completed destroyed your effort by your arguments. The article is poorly written and poorly cited and IMHO should have been deleted on those grounds, but now that you've framed the debate in terms of limiting access to information, it's over. Discussions like that don't fly in Wikipedia. Yuchitown (talk) 22:57, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The original article was longer and also had more sources.  Satellizer el Bridget (Talk)  13:24, 1 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment Seeing as it has been over a month since this AFD was filed, could an admin review the comments here and decide on how to handle the closing of this AFD? RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:38, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. Sorry, but a deletion based on religious grounds is not going to happen. Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED and has a long history of hosting objectionable content, such as Depictions of Muhammad and Xenu, the latter of which is potentially comparable as another case of information not being meant for the public. The slew of recent coverage of Skinwalkers by several RS renders the point of censorship moot anyway, that cat is clearly already out of the bag. Also, the page should be renamed to skinwalker (no hyphen) as that's the WP:COMMONNAME.  Satellizer el Bridget (Talk)  13:24, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * KEEP! Remember that Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED; such deleting under religous grounds are so unfair. KGirlTrucker87 (talk) 13:47, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment If this article is deleted, should all of the mentions in Skin-walker (disambiguation) be deleted as well? It's not like this is the only article that mentions skinwalkers. Liz  Read! Talk! 14:12, 1 May 2016 (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.