Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Fisherwife of Palermo


 * 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 as per consensus and no calls for deletion beyond the nominator. Non-admin closure. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The Fisherwife of Palermo

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Another single sourced (from a Swedish book) article about a minor alleged witch trial case created by the same editor who made Hans the Werewolf, also up for deletion. This level of detail is way too much to be based upon a single source of unknown reliability (a lot of the claims made seem quite controversial and would probably be argued differently if other sources paid any attention to it), and Wikipedia articles require multiple independent reliable sources with nontrivial coverage, etc. A search on Google for more information found a ton of Wikipedia mirrors and sites skimming text from the article (as well as some strange search result pages showing no hits on various sites), but no reliable sources at websites and no books at Google books mentioning the case, which is why we should delete it. DreamGuy (talk) 15:50, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Just because the only reference is in a Swedish book does not mean that the article should be deleted. We have countless articles that are completely unsourced, but that alone doesn't mean that they should be deleted. I also hardly consider it to be of little importance, given that the subject of the trial appears to have had connections with paganism. Foreign language references are considered perfectly valid for Wikipedia.  Furthermore, User:Aciram has made many excellent contributions and his/her work has been consistently of good quality. S/he is clearly an intelligent and thoughtful editor and I'm quite sure that s/he is capable of determining whether or not the book s/he used is reliable or not. Asarelah (talk) 17:54, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment -- It doesn't surprise me that there are no English sources, given that it took place in Sweden huh? are we talking about the same article? Palermo is in Sicily, not Sweden. Not that this in any way invalidates your point about the suitability of non-english sources. Dlabtot (talk) 18:46, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry. I was tired when I wrote that. Its fixed now. Asarelah (talk) 18:54, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * "We have countless articles that are completely unsourced, but that alone doesn't mean that they should be deleted." Yes, it does. Plese try reading our rules for notability. DreamGuy (talk) 21:27, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Then why do we have special tags for articles that are completely unsourced? Why do we mark them out for improvement and request that sources be added rather than automatically deleting them? Asarelah (talk) 23:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - I think I can answer this; these are added because it points out a problem with the article and can be done quickly by an editor. It takes seconds to do. If, however, an editor feels that there just probably aren't any sources (which is an indicator that the subject isn't notable) that editor would be best-served to make a good-faith effort themself to find those sources, and if they can't find them, at that point they can nominate the article for deletion. I've done both myself many times; I've added requests for references with tags, and other times I've taken the time to go out and try to find those sources and ended up asking for the page to be deleted when I failed. It just depends on how much time I have and how much effort I'm willing to make at that point. The advice I've given to numerous editors trying to create an article is to first find sources. Work on the article in your own user space in a subpage and get those sources added before creating it, nobody will touch it then. Stubs are often in danger of deletion, and many (if not most) deserve deletion because the subject wasn't notable to begin with. If you can have those sources from the start it's very unlikely that someone will delete your work later. I've learned this the hard way by having dozens of articles deleted after I put a lot of time and effort into improving them, and now if I take interest in an article the first thing I try to do is improve the references before I bother to do anything else. Remember that verifiability is one of the most core policies of Wikipedia, and without a variety of reliable sources you can't have that in an article. --  At am a chat 23:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Asareleh's point was a rhetorical one, meaning: There is a clear alternative to deletion, and that is to tag the article as needing references. Your practical advice is still relevant, and well taken by myself, at least. Anarchangel (talk) 15:34, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply - That is not true. If references can't be readily found then a request for references is useless. You don't tag an article asking for more references when you know they aren't out there. And I don't know if you have participated in other AfDs before, but an AfD is never closed with a request for finding references. If those references can't be found in the course of the AfD, the article is deleted. --  At am a chat 00:00, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep The issue with a single source is pronounced when the matter is controversial per WP:AD. Is this controversial? The account seems believable and scholarly; it's certainly not WP:FRINGE.--AuthorityTam (talk) 21:00, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Our standards for having a Wikipedia article demand multiple, independent, reliable nontrivial coverage. The rules for mentioning something in some other article that already has notability established are slightly less strict, but a large portion of the content in this article would be controversial, yes... which is irrelevant at this point because it shouldn't even have an article at all. DreamGuy (talk) 21:27, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * In WP:N, 'multiple' is not specified. The article has two. Independent has no place in this discussion at all, everyone in the history has been dead for almost half a millenium. Reliable, there is some small evidence for, and none at all against; it certainly falls under the benefit of reasonable belief that they are. Nontrivial? The sources -are- the material, the sources are the antithesis of a passing reference. Now, you may well say, I was just outlining what the WP standards are. But I ask you, why were you mentioning them, or notability at all, when they are all quite obviously irrelevant, meaning the article is by default notable? And finally, what on earth can you possibly mean by controversial? Anarchangel (talk) 15:34, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No, those are not the standards for having an article on Wikipedia. Those are the standards for having an article assessed as meeting a certain class (featured, B-class, etc.) Please see Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment. If you would delete this on the basis that it does not meet those standards, I'm a bit curious as to whether or not you intend to scour the wiki and nominate all the stubs, start-class, and c-class articles for deletion as well. Asarelah (talk) 23:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - Aseralah, I'm sorry, but you're very much wrong. Please read WP:N which outlines the notability requirements for all articles. As to the suggestion that DreamGuy delete "stub, start-class, and c-class articles", the WP:N guideline does not require that articles currently have such sources, merely that such sources exist. If someone challenges that assertion then it is the burden of those wanting to keep the article to show that such sources are out there. In time those sources can be added to the article, there is no time limit, but if those sources aren't there then the article does not merit being in Wikipedia. There are a number of stub-class articles that I have rescued from proposed deletions after finding reliable sources, I've often put those sources on the talk page for a future editor to add as a reference later. --  At am a chat 23:14, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You are correct that WP:N includes most of DG's requirements. However, in WP:N, 'multiple' is not specified. And none of the requirements have a bearing on this article. Independent has no place in this discussion at all, everyone in the history has been dead for almost half a millenium. Reliability, there is some small evidence for, and none at all against, it certainly can be given the benefit of reasonable belief that they are. Nontrivial? The sources -are- the material, the sources are the antithesis of a passing reference. I will assume that you only meant to point out the congruence of DG's list and WP:N, but as you failed to point out the fact that WP:N is irrelevant here, it appears that you have in some way endorsed DG's erroneous citing of WP:N. Anarchangel (talk) 15:34, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply - Let me quote WP:N; "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." It is very specific in stating that there should be multiple sources. Please tell me where in WP:N it states that there are any circumstances where WP:N is "irrelevant". Your argument is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of notability in Wikipedia. --  At am a chat 00:00, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 00:18, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 00:18, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 00:18, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, although as the creator, It is perhaps not my place to say. It is hard to look for it on the net, as the woman is not mentioned by name. This case is presented as a representative example to describe the special form of witch trials taking place on Sicily were fairies were involved; a form of fairy with trials. Her confession is described as one of the most detalied of this phenomena. This was, as I have understood it, a phenomena unique for Sicily, putting 65 people on trial in the period of 1579-1651. This should be relevant. Witch trials involving mythological fairies in such a way, the combination of folklore and witch trials, was unique. The importance of this case in this context is pointed out in the text. Dreamguy removed the text describing the context of the case, and the importance of the case in this context. I have reintroduced it. The article should not lack context. However, I have considered to alter the name of the article: perhaps the article should describe the phenomena in itself rather than to concentrate on a specific case. My intention with this article was to present a representative example, as it was presented in the reference, for a historical phenomena unique for Sicily. This case is described as a case used to exemplify this special phenomena. --Aciram (talk) 10:14, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I did a quick google on this one this morning and wasn’t able to come up with anything specific to this case. However, it was clear that trials for witchcraft in this period of Sicilian history were distinctly significant. If you have the sources to broaden the scope of the article somewhat (and, as you say, perhaps rename it) that would be very good. But, if you don’t have access to those sources, I still think that the article should stay. Someone else will work on it in due course, which is the way that Wikipedia works. Ian Spackman (talk) 22:06, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete if keeping the article as-is; I don't believe it has the sources necessary to show notability. Keep if the article can describe the phonomena and have additional sources. Also, not that it should affect the outcome of this deletion discussion, but I strongly suggest having inline sources so that individual claims within the article can be shown to be referenced; that also helps show that the article is not written with original research but is instead verified by the reliable sources provided. --  At am a chat 23:14, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The article has been on the Swedish Wikipedia since August 2007 with the Eva Kärfve book cite, suggesting that it may be a legitimate ref. I'll add it to the Swedish discussion, just to get input from people who may know who Kärfve is. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:24, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I've changed my suggestion above to a straight Keep, I have confidence that with the expanded scope it won't be difficult to show notability. Thanks! --  At am a chat 16:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions.  —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:27, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Place References Tag and Keep Atama has shown us how to proceed, although I disagree with the notion that it is the page creator's responsibility to ensure that the page is not deleted. It is the responsibility of those discussing the article on its talk page, RFCs, and AfDs. The nominator has shown us how not to proceed; WP:N has almost entirely nothing to do with this article, let alone infringements of WP:N. There is however one issue to be resolved, it is not necessarily for this AfD to resolve it: According to DreamGuy, and I agree with his words, if not his meaning: The article's sources are of 'unknown' value. This brings up four possibilities: The sources are good, yet the article is deleted. The first glimmer of information about an area of history largely unknown to the English speaking world is cut down by a Justice that is not blind to prejudice, but blind to legal procedure. This is to be avoided at all costs. The sources are bad, and the article is deleted. This is a good thing, apart from an entertaining fairy story being removed from WP. The sources are good, and the article remains. What can I say that I haven't already in the first possibility? WP working as intended. The sources are bad, and the article remains. Is anyone going to take the fairy tale without a grain of salt? I can't see a downside to letting the article remain, with the References tag that is not only a call for action but a caveat to readers. Anarchangel (talk) 15:34, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Anarchangel. Whatever problems it may have, its value is such that it should be kept regardless. Asarelah (talk) 17:52, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply - No offense, but that is ridiculous. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. WP:N has everything to do with this article, and asking for it to be kept because you like it isn't going to be effective. I've tried to help by giving a compromise, and the only reason why I asked Aciram to find sources is because he seems to be the only one capable of it. Do you expect me to go learn a foreign language and do it? I'm not going to be able to do that. I don't care if Aciram does it or someone else, but more sources are needed. I suggested expanding the scope of the article, in fact I didn't even suggest it originally, Aciram did. If we expand the scope of the article past a single incident, then it should be easier to find references. But you are required by policy to justify what is in the article with sources if challenged, which is what has happened. I'm not out to get this article deleted, I want this article to meet the inclusion requirements, and I'm willing to help do that, but if it can't be done then this article can't stay, I'm sorry. --  At am a chat 00:00, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Further Reply - Nobody has answered my original question, does anyone object to an expansion of the article? What if it is expanded past this single incident of The Fisherwife of Palermo? If we can then find more sources for other, similiar incidents, that should certainly satisfy WP:N. --  At am a chat 00:13, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * CommentI do not object renaming the article to make it be about the phenomena with examples of it, if is necessary to do so. I suppose, that there will be easier for everyone to find sources, if the article is about the phenomena in itself. There are more than one source about it, and the reference by Kärfve is considered very reliable. But be in mind, that I wrote this article a long time ago, and therefore I do not feel that I can do this before consulting the sources again and double-check them. The problems is that I have so little time, and it would be a shame that they are deleted because of that. But I will truly do my best to take the time this week! --Aciram (talk) 11:16, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep I don’t see any clear reason to delete this. Ian Spackman (talk) 19:54, 30 June 2009 (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.