Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Whaling in the Sea of Okhotsk

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 Sea of Okhotsk#Whaling. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:35, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Whaling in the Sea of Okhotsk

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is not an easy nomination to make. Unfortunately, the article creator -- through an impressive level of mania -- has turned out an article that belongs in the Twilight Zone. At nearly 120kb, it's bloated out of proportion, and carries a breathtaking 636 citations. It is choked with unencyclopedic trivia and WP:UNDUE detail that has had more than one editor pronounce it unreadable.

Equally unfortunately, the article creator has been defending his work with an unwarranted level of ownership reflected in the edit summaries, in other related creations of his, and at ANI, disparaging the efforts of those he feels are "non-experts" in the field. I can't claim that the subject is non-notable, or that it is unverifiable. But I feel that the article is unsalvageable as it stands, and that blowing it up and starting from scratch is the only viable option. Ravenswing 12:09, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Ravenswing 12:09, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Or possibly harpoon. Or apply WP:DYNAMITE (though I've seen video suggesting the latter is inadvisable for deceased cetaceans). If an encyclopaedic article on the topic is possible, it isn't going to be rendered down from this humongous blubbery monstrosity. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:23, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Löschen: Uncomfortably support based on WP:TNT. Would also support massive rewrite via draftification. Gusfriend (talk) 12:25, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No objection to draftification, as long as it's not to the article creator, whose competence is in doubt. Ravenswing 12:38, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
... and who was indeffed earlier today for threats and personal attacks requiring revdel. Ravenswing 20:21, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well then, that's not appreciated. We're left with this citation nightmare to deal with. Oaktree b (talk) 15:28, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Löschen. This is ship logs put onto a screen, not an encyclopaedically written article. I'm sure the topic is valid for an article, but this isn't that article. Even after spending far too much time on it, it's unreadable and just full of unencyclopaedic info and (I never thought I'd say this) far far far far far far far far far (is that enough?) to many references. Canterbury Tail talk 12:51, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's a whale of a problem. Oaktree b (talk) 15:28, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sea of Okhotsk#Whaling. While most of the current content does not fit here, I believe that some of the first paragraph in Chronology, which is sourced to relatively recent secondary sources (Bockstoce 1986 and Kugler 1984), would read fine in the larger article. I suspect this is a valid topic, but it's not one that should be based on primary sources the way this one appears to be. CMD (talk) 14:32, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per CMD as a plausible search term for what can be encyclopedically described at Sea of Okhotsk#Whaling. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 06:17, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Overlinking parody. Nobody has the time to fix this. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:00, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete oh boy, this is about the most ref stacked article I've seen. I'm not evaluating that many sources. TNT seems like an option, but just delete it. Article creator having been blocked doesn't help the situation. Oaktree b (talk) 12:17, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sea of Okhotsk#Whaling. While the article as written is problematic, there is useful, reliably sourced information there on a valid encyclopedic topic if someone wants to use it to either write an appropriately sized section within the Sea of Okhotsk article, or even write an appropriate article for Whaling in the Sea of Okhotsk. Redirecting would be appropriate for anyone who enters "whaling in the Sea of Okhotsk" and would preserve the information and sources for anyone who wants to use them.Rlendog (talk) 20:59, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is almost entirely OR. It's pretty clear to me from an (admittedly) cursory glance that the majority of the references are to archival sources. The abbreviations appear to refer to specific archives listed under "Logbooks and journals." TNT seems like a good option here or possibly redirect if not enough secondary sources can be found. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:38, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sea of Okhotsk#Whaling, best option. ZanciD (talk) 17:31, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.