Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wawalag


 * 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 no consensus.  Sandstein  18:05, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Wawalag

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article is worse than useless because it is completely uncited and only refers to one possible version of the story, and the link to the supposed father of them (which doesn't exist in all stories) is not covered in that article. I would delete and if someone wants to re-create properly (which would take quite a bit of work). (See this encyclopaedia, for instance.) Laterthanyouthink (talk) 08:30, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 08:48, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 08:48, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete. Unsourced, unable to determine reliability. WWGB (talk) 09:28, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. Article should not be judged purely based on it's current state. . duffbeerforme (talk) 02:40, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 16:25, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - I would support keeping if sources were added. Bearian (talk) 17:08, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - I would also support keeping if sufficient reliable sources can be found. Bookscale (talk) 00:23, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment - the problem is, if you look at the history, it's hardly been touched since creation, and if you Google, there is a lot of work needed to attempt to cover all variations and possible interpretations, and reliable sources are scant. Who will do the work, and when? My point is that it's useless and misleading in its current form, which is worse than having no article at all. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 03:43, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 14:27, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment, from the nominator - "This article is worse than useless ...", and "My point is that it's useless and misleading in its current form", see WP:CONTN, emphasises that notability is of the subject and not of the wikiarticle. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:31, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete or perhaps draftify. I believe the subject is notable, however, given article's current state relative to even the limited content readily available it is a WP:TNT.  Given the extremely limited work done on it, I suggest WP:TNTTNT does not apply.  If any issues in this regard then draftify. Aoziwe (talk) 12:38, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Yunggor.  Merge and relevant sourceable content.  Changed my !vote as per further information below.  Aoziwe (talk) 11:49, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. The subject is certainly notable and I've now added some references and I think it has the potential to be a great (appropriate) little page. Cabrils (talk) 05:11, 10 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Problem: they're all hardcopy, and available in only one location. There's a real scarcity of info online, and what I did look at before was conflicting. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 05:29, 10 February 2020 (UTC) p.s. I found and added one old but fairly detailed and reliable online source which I found after writing the above, which gives a rough outline of the main elements of the story, adding that space does not allow for the many variants. This may be a good starting point to work from, if the article is to be kept (assuming someone has the time and will to improve it). Laterthanyouthink (talk) 11:47, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes that's true but I think it's important to remember that "Even though Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, there is no distinction between using online versus offline sources": WP:OFFLINE. The difficulty of offline sources is that it makes researching more difficult (a bit like how the world used to operate for the last 1000+ years ;-) !). I like what you've done, good start in the right direction! Cabrils (talk) 22:50, 11 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep - I'll keep this in good faith due to the sources added. Due to the subject-matter an online source may not always be available. Merge or redirect to Yunggor - JarrahTree has identified a much more appropriate place rather than its own page. I'll leave it up to others to determine whether anything is worth merging or not. Bookscale (talk) 11:17, 10 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete - Wikipedia politeness rules prevent my response to most comments here - it is a very valid northern territory creation myth, and if anyone actually checked - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yunggor#Mythology is part of the problem, whether to have a separate article, or some effort to help the Yunggor article.  JarrahTree 13:00, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - - I don't understand your delete vote. I don't know much about this topic and added a keep in good faith but if there's a better place to put this, I'm happy to be convinced - it would be helpful for you as someone much more knowledgeable about the topic to explain a bit more. For example, if the myth is valid but nothing worth merging here, why not a redirect? I also don't understand why any of the responses here may have warranted a rude reply if you were able to do that - they seem to have been made in good faith with limited information. Bookscale (talk) 10:20, 11 February 2020 (UTC)


 * reply - there is clear evidence another article exists, with better context and references, this afd seems a time waster - on the basis that as the article with context already exists, there is no need to have a separate article. I have not seen any argumnet from this afd that suggests anyone has the resources to specifically expand the article for it to complement the existing article.  JarrahTree 10:52, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I may have muddied the waters somewhat by finding a reliable source and adding a bit of info from this yesterday. I'm happy either way, but if merged it is probably worth copying the extra source (if I haven't done so already) into that article too. And the new (hard copy) citations mentioned above. Thanks for all of your contributions, and for pointing out the Yunggor article, . Laterthanyouthink (talk) 12:10, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I have just caught up and I think I agree with 's position and . Thank you both. Cabrils (talk) 22:50, 11 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep significant Dreamtime story appearing across multiple nations (hence inappropriate to redirect to Yunggor) and discussed in multiple independent academic and tertiary sources. AfD is not cleanup. --Goldsztajn (talk) 10:31, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Goldsztajn May I ask for some help with your references please.  As per above I have currently !voted delete on the basis of TNT ...   I would fix the article if possible.  I have had a quick look at your references and sorry but I am having trouble finding the relevant material.  Can you provide me with some page numbers please within your references. (#1 is 51 pages, #2 is 38 pages, #3 is 602 pages, #4 while only 6 pages seems to be just a museum holding catalogue outline and it is not obvious to me on first look where the reference is, #5 is okay).  Regards.  Aoziwe (talk) 11:56, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * - I've placed the references with specific page indications on the article's talk page. The piece ("museum catalogue") by Stanton (1995) is important because on page 57 in the lower right corner is a Yirrkalla bark painting depicting the story of the Wawalag Sisters. --Goldsztajn (talk) 15:03, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I've added some more references to the talk page. --Goldsztajn (talk) 17:06, 13 February 2020 (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.