Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beerwolf

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, although the "keep" view does a much better job of justifying their positions with regard to Wikipedia guidelines. For the record, simple comments as "nonsense" and "patent rubbish" in the face of references are not helpful to us admins in evaluating the discussion. AKRadecki 18:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Beerwolf

Beerwolf (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

An article about a word that has apparently only ever been used by one person. I don't see how this can possibly be notable. Derlay 23:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment This article was recreated after it was speedily deleted as WP:CSD#A7. --Derlay 23:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

• del looks like joke to me. Mukadderat 00:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as fairly obvious hoax to me. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 00:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment The article cited is real, and in fact does describe the term. I found this article and one other describing the term and concept on JSTOR. Sci girl 04:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as patent rubbish. Elrith 00:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as nonsense. -- Rob C (Alarob) 01:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. I don't think it's a hoax. My German isn't up to much anymore, but there are references such as this, and you will have to search for the word Beerwolf [1] that seem to confirm that Martin Luther did indeed use the term and in the context mentioned in the article. (That's a Google HTML version of a Windows .doc file and it is in German) I should also point out that there is a problem in the reference provided with the Wikipedia article as it requires registration to see the whole article on the JSTOR website. I tend more towards this being an article of unclear importance, as I can't find many references to Luther using the term regularly Perhaps the article might be merged into a more relevant article. Flowerpotman talk|contribs 01:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Additional Comment All that said, regarding the rest of the article, I should also add that I can't find any references to the term being used in any other theological context.Flowerpotman talk|contribs 01:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • The only problem is FUTON bias, and that is not a problem with the citation in the article. Uncle G 08:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Of course. I did have a problem with the phrase "In the context of the theology of resistance", which I took to mean that the term was in more general use, beyond Luther, and I couldn't find any mention of the phrase, which I think would have appeared somewhere. But I think I might have misinterpreted the intent of the phrase. Flowerpotman talk|contribs 21:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep if there's more than this one source. Paid sources are perfectly appropriate in the absence of equally good free ones, and hundreds of libraries subscribe. WP is not limited to the free resources on the web, and the point isn't the least relevant in terms of an AfD discussion. (The ref should show the name of the printed source as well, as all JSTOR articles are simply electronic reprints of articles in specific scholarly journals.-- The print journal ref by itself would be sufficient, as there is no prejudice against printed sources, but its best to give the electronic version also.) I adjusted the refs, and changed the paraphrase to a more exact quote. Luther's concept is certainly notable, but I do not know if Luther used the term more generally, or just once. Otherwise merge into an appropriate article. DGG 01:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, Total nonsense, bad scentence structure and unsourced quotes. Stealthrabbit ^{Say it, baby, say it!} 02:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • The quotation is sourced. Uncle G 08:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• KILL THE WOLF! aka delete, per nom and as a probable hoax. --Whstchy 03:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• STRONG KEEP Whstchy and others - look at the reference - it is a legitimate journal by a legitimate author. Unless that is no longer valid and equals hoax in your eyes. 172.165.190.243 14:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep, if the article is expanded and the importance of the use of the word by Luther is explained in the context of the evolution of Luther's theological position. I think the article needs more context, but should be given the time to develop. And I think in fairness to the author, I think I should point out that there is nothing in the article that would lead me to think it is anything other than a good-faith, constructive contribution.Flowerpotman talk|contribs 21:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep

A few brief observations by the original author:

1. Regarding the comments on a 'fairly obvious hoax', 'patent rubbish' and 'kill the wolf'. While I understand the amount of total nonsense that comes up in Wikipedia, and the consequent need for your eternal vigilance, you would seem less silly if you at least extended your verification efforts to Google Scholar, Google Books or Amazon, all of which find references of the existence and use of the term as described in the article.

Needless to say, the fact that you do not have access to JSTOR has no bearing whatsoever on the issue of deletion. It certainly is not sufficient grounds for assumption of bad faith. I regret that so much information is locked up behind gated archives such as JSTOR, which is why I create pages like this, however marginal they may seem to Joe Bloggs.

2. Regarding 'sentence structure and unsourced quotes'. I hope you do not mean to suggest that this merits deletion? We all know very well that less than perfect style is, alas, one of the drawbacks of collaborative and constantly-evolving efforts such as Wikipedia.

3. Regarding Flowerpotman's comments. The significance of the term is not so much that it caught on (as many philosophical notions, the name itself did not pass onto authors), but that Luther used it to describe a rather radical idea, in strong departure from his traditional theory of resistance.

4. Regarding notability. As I understand it, this is the only reasonable grounds for deletion. As I noted above, it is true that the term was (probably) not explicitly used by others in highly visible ways. This is, given the historical context, understandable. A 'beerwolf', after all, is a mythical beast in German, and those who most directly drew on Luther's theory of resistance to secular power were Huguenots, who for understandable reasons preferred homegrown French words for their theories. This, of course, raises a further claim to notability: a 'beerwolf', just as a griffin or unicorn, is a creature of mythology.

I will make a few quick additions to put the concept it into better and clearer context, but I am neither qualified nor particularly interested in writing an extended article on it. I would be surprised if the article did not subsequently grow, as so many other inchoate entries on Wikipedia have.

I also readily grant that there is not even an article on resistance theory on Wikipedia. No doubt it will come into being before long.

5. Regarding Derlay's comments. Yes, this article was restored following a speedy deletion, which, in my understanding, unequivocally did not meet criterion A7, contrary to claims otherwise. Unless the user who opted for speedy deletion has never heard of Martin Luther, in which case, perhaps he should spend more time reading and less time editing Wikipedia.

In short, I would hope that the article be allowed to stay on Wikipedia, and that those rendering pithy verdicts such as 'an obvious hoax' engage in better research for the next article that they propose to delete. Sluggy 13:47, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment In response to your third point first, and as I commented above, I did take the phrase "In the context of the theology of resistance" to mean that the expression had taken on a wider importance and usage. Your subsequent edits to the article have made the meaning clear, but I am sorry if my misintepretation added any confusion to the discussion.

Regarding JSTOR access: As someone who actually should know better as I do remember life before the World Wide Web, I think that DGG's comment and Uncle G's polite nudge above were a needed reminder. I must admit to a frustration, albeit wrong, in seeing a valid reference on a website but not being able to access it.

On a more general note: of course, it could probably go without saying that I am not a expert on the life and thoughts of Martin Luther. On first seeing the article, however, I did have enough general knowledge of the subject that even on first glance, I thought that it was potentially of importance. Again, your subsequent edits and other edits have clarified the notability of the subject and have addressed any of the concerns I expressed above. Flowerpotman talk|contribs 02:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep. Referenced and even if you don't believe those a simple google seach returns more than enough scholarly reviews. Nuttah68 12:30, 28 May 2007 (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.