Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wentshukumishiteu


 * 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   redirect to Inuit mythology. seems to be the least harmful of the options available and I hope noone minds my using discretion in this case Spartaz Humbug! 17:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Wentshukumishiteu

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

I cannot find any sources for this creature, in either spelling. No hits in Google Books or News, and what I find on the web is all totally unreliable or as reliable as its strongest source--which is this Wikipedia article. The German and Dutch WP articles have no sources either (and the one for this article is dead). Drmies (talk) 19:54, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

-->
 * Delete Here's the web archive of the listed source, which is apparently from the official website for the Innu nation. Still a single dead link doesn't really cut it, and the rest of the web hits are quite sketchy.  Possible merge into a list. (Now that I'm looking, a number of the articles in Template:Inuit Mythology are one-liners with no source whatsoever.) Joshdboz (talk) 20:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. With the low number of literate people familiar with Innu mythology, chances are that many of the deities and other creatures will have few or no reliable sources written about them. Unfortunately, that means information given to Wikipedia about them is not verifiable, and that means no article can be written. At best, there can be a centralized article with only a mere mention of each individual deity or creature. As for the articles mentioned by Joshdboz, maybe an expansion of Inuit mythology is in order. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 22:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 22:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. I was wondering if this was a hoax or not. Thanks, Josh, for the archived link; I hope some mythology geek comes along and saves this, but I am not comforted by the utter lack of even Google hits. Drmies (talk) 01:47, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I think the problem is just the transliteration into English. I Googled the alternate spelling in brackets and found the United Cherokee Ani-Yun-Wiya Nation Web site, which I've added. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:11, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I should also like to make a WP:PRESERVE appeal here based on the fact that for thousands of years Inuit culture was entirely oral, and cut off from Western contact or transcription. The written form of Inuktitut was only developed in the late 19th century. Aboriginal nations have only begun to take advantage of digital media to document their own stories. So unlike classical or Norse mythology, there is still an awful lot of work to do in documenting Inuit mythology. I myself was present at the premiere of the multi-award-winning feature Atanarjuat and I can tell you that the mythology behind that film was completely opaque to non-Inuit audiences, while entirely familiar to Inuit viewers. So we're just beginning to discover Inuit culture and legend and I respectful ask that we use prudence in considering whether to delete here, as I think the ref now makes it clear this is not a hoax. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:48, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  20:27, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Going through the list of articles in the Inuit mythology template, most of them are one-liners. The "United Cherokee Ani-Yun-Wiya Nation"'s website doesn't inspire confidence as a scholarly source. This article should be merged into the pre-existing Inuit mythology, which is very incomplete and could be greatly improved. The information is good to have on wikipedia but it would be read more often as a part of a unified article, instead of dozens of separate snippets. So my vote would be turn into a redirect  to Inuit mythology. -Uyvsdi (talk) 07:57, 15 September 2009 (UTC)Uyvsdi
 * As for merging dozens of these "snippets," are you also saying we should then delete Template:Inuit_Mythology, which links to these articles? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:11, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Concepts like Sedna (mythology) and Inua would have no shortage of references. (Inua is short now, but could easily be expanded.) Perhaps just streamline the template down to those articles that have enough material and can stand alone, them merge together the smaller entries that are essentially just definitions? -Uyvsdi (talk) 16:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)Uyvsdi
 * I could live with that. I guess we'll see how many red links start appearing in the template, if more articles are deleted and/or merged. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:52, 15 September 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.