Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of caves of Maryland

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. postdlf (talk) 19:31, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of caves of Maryland

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

This article has had a refimprove tag since 2010 and has not been acted on. The negligible amount of content that is cited does not directly apply to the article content. A lot of the editing is original research as seen in the edit summaries and the quality of content added. Additionally, because the article subject is about a specific book stating it's the "principal source for information", referencing that book would be effectively citing a primary source repeatedly which is against Wikipedia's policies. This could lead to plagiarism/copyright infringement if it could be discerned what is material from the book (if any) and what is original research on this article. A discussion about this has been started on the talk page but has been ignored by those who edit the article's content. For these reasons, the article has been nominated for deletion, as deleting uncited material would leave almost nothing left in the article. Leitmotiv (talk) 01:17, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content

I'm going to add my latest discussion from the article's talk page, with some minor edits to it.

What an edit would look like if all uncited material were removed

Okay editors, I went through and did a preliminary edit and I'm posting my results here, so you can see what it would look like beforehand. But first, I'll share with you my thoughts on the Notes section of this article. Keep in mind that "Notes" aren't actually references/citations. They're supposed to act as additional commentary that would otherwise distract from the narrative or the narrative's cadence, but is important to the article's content. It appears the notes in this article are behaving like references, but are marked up as notes erroneously. These notes should be converted.

Note #1 should be converted to a ref. The following sentence suggests that the book Caves of Maryland is the "principal source of information" about this article, and the first sentence in this article suggests the reference book is the subject of the article in no small part. Therefore, I'd treat the book Caves of Maryland as a primary source because it's the principal source; it is likely to be referenced a lot. In fact, the article goes on to say it will use the book as an "outline" further declaring its intention to copy it, or behave like the book. The book can still be referenced, but primary sources are usually only cited to prove the existence of something or to prove information about it's publication, such as publishing information (date, author, press, etc). Citing this book multiple times is not what this article wants to be doing. At the very least (and probably at the very most too), this book can be referenced after the very first sentence.

Note #2 is a dead link and the bot that takes care of dead links either hasn't gotten to it yet, or perhaps no substitute exists. Not sure how those bots work exactly. But it doesn't really matter, because the note appears to be defining what a cave is, which is not necessary for this article, nor is it the focus of this article. You could direct someone to the cave article for that. Therefore it can be entirely deleted since the adjacent content is also uncited.

Note #3 is about the Maryland Geological Survey, but appears to be noting the specificity of Hagerstown Valley having well-established waterways, which the link does not specifically say. Nor does the website say anything about caves or any specific cave as far as I can see. So the note does not support the sentence, nor does the sentence refer to the note. Therefore it is entirely deleted. No harm really done, since this article is about caves and not about underlying waterways.

Note #4 is also a dead link. If no one can find a replacement, everything it's noting is tentatively deleted. It appears the note was referencing "ridge-lines" of the Catoctin area, which arguably adds nothing to the dialogue of the article, and certainly not after the related uncited material is deleted.

Note #5 appears to be valid supporting material. Even though the direct link has zero information supporting the written content, the search engine on that site supports the claim that John Friend Cave and Crabtree Cave are protected by the Nature Conservancy. If this note were converted to a reference and the url links made more direct, those two caves would remain a part of the article.

Note #6 " A (sic) History of Western Maryland [with Illustrations]" is noted for Marker Cave. Again, another note that was probably intended as a reference. I assume it's supporting the fact that Marker Cave was the focus of an archaeological investigation that revealed the remains of Native Americans. The book itself can be found here and is searchable. A search in the document for "Marker" reveals no mention of a cave by that name and therefore the note, if it were to be converted, does not support the claim. A search for "bodies", "mummy", "mummies", "skeleton", and "remains" also did not come up with anything close to supporting the claim about Marker Cave. Everything in this section should be deleted.

All right, so what would the article look like after my edits? Here is the remaining content:

List of caves of Maryland

List of caves of Maryland is based on the book The Caves of Maryland by William E. Davies.[1] It's predecessor was a series of reports by Martin Muma in the mid-1940s, working under the Maryland Geological Survey. After the release of these articles, a more comprehensive study was begun in 1946 by Davies and The Caves of Maryland was released in 1950. Since its publication, this reference work has remained the principal source for information about Maryland caves, and has served as an outline for the work to follow.

List of caves:

Crabtree - A cave protected by the The Nature Conservancy[2]
Crystal Grottoes - Maryland's only show-cave, developed in the Tomstown Dolomite at 420 feet (130 m) elevation.
Cumberland Bone Cave - A fossil-filled cave along the western slope of Wills Mountain on the outskirts of Cumberland, Maryland near Corriganville in Allegany County, Maryland.
John Friend - A cave protected by the Nature Conservancy[2]

And that's it. Not much of a list, and hardly worth contributing to another article. And hardly worth an article about a List of Caves of Maryland. Leitmotiv (talk) 01:35, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly moot, because the "Caves of Maryland" source is found to be available for free on-line (see below). And I will reply in detail to the original posting of this comment at Talk:List of caves of Maryland. --Doncram (talk) 14:49, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:10, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:10, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:10, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Keep and improve- Unless someone does a complete rewrite of this article, its needs to go. It appears that all the information in this article was plagiarized from another source (perhaps the book mentioned at the beginning of the article) See comments below--Rusf10 (talk) 23:53, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ref improvement tag has been in place since 2010 with no action taken. I don't think anyone wants to rewrite the article. Leitmotiv (talk) 19:09, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, reads like a lift and drop from elsewhere. Probable copyvio. Stifle (talk) 14:18, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a perfectly notable topic and no one voting so far has accessed the principal source. There is no assertion that any information in the article is controversial so there is no reason to delete any caves mentioned. There is no evidence presented of copyvio or plagiarism or anything like that; it is a decent article which lists caves in the state grouped by county. Note that it is effectively split out of List of caves in the United States, so "Delete" would not be an appropriate decision of this AFD; at worst it could be redirected or merged to List of caves in the United States#Maryland. --Doncram (talk) 05:28, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Doncram, Have you read the article? Your comments seem to suggest not. A lot of content looks like original research which is not allowed. None of it is cited despite a 10 year tag being in place. You can't prove if it's plagiarism or copyvio because nothing is cited- hinting at original research for the mass bulk of it! You also seem to have glossed over the fact that the book itself would be the primary source and citing it a hundred times would be a violation of Wikipedia policies. As for adding to the List of U.S. Caves - not much can be added. That list does not get descriptions. The most you could do is add redlinks with citations, except for Cumberland Bone Cave, which I just added. I disagree that a merge to a list article with an established format at odds with this contested article is what needs to occur. Leitmotiv (talk) 06:45, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your complaint boils down to the fact you should want to tag the article with {{no footnotes}}, which calls for inline citations. I just revised the lede of the article and added that tag for you.

Otherwise:

Note that many of the items could be valid for separate articles in Wikipedia. Having a list-article which covers them is better than creating separate articles for each one. The coverage of each is better in a list-article which provides overall context. Having the list-article avoids cycle of article creation and deletion and re-creation of each separate article; the list-article coverage provides a good target for merger/redirect of separate articles. Note that all of these are geological features, supporting their individual validity.
The article seems to have been written by spelunker(s) interested in the topic of caves in Maryland. It appears to be comprehensive, covering all or nearly all known caves which meet the definition for a cave which is clearly stated in the article. This is good.
A typical example item is :
Cumberland Quarry - Wills Creek Formation at 720 feet (220 m) elevation. On the south side of Wills Creek, opposite Valley Street in Cumberland. There are two crawlways here in a tightly folded section of the Wills Creek Formation, on the east face of an old quarry.

This is FINE. It would be improved by having an inline citation, but there is no contention suggested by the deletion nominator that this cave does not exist. I think it is fine to reflect the spelunker's interest in "two crawlways".

Another example, also with no contended information is:

Devil's Den - located south of Flintstone on the farm once owned by an H. Jackson. The entrance is on a wooded hillside and can be found by following the strike of the rocks northeast from a spring adjacent the house. Local tradition holds that children have played here for many years, though no dates are known to occur in the cave. The entrance is at 1,030 feet (310 m) elevation and can be easily deduced by the following means: the cave represents a lesser-used drainway of Flintstone Creek, where it plunges below the surface behind the school until its resurgence at the Jackson spring where it joins the other half of Flintstone Creek as a tributary of the Murley Branch. The cave is part of an upper level located around 1,030 feet (310 m), directly above the subterranean branch of the Flintstone, both of which occur in a thin band of the Tonoloway Formation adjacent to the Wills Creek Shale and Keyser Limestone. The present owner, Donald Jackson, reports the rear portion of the cave to be collapsing. He said the cave is considered to be closed.

For this one, an inline citation would also be helpful. And the current tense should be avoided; whatever the "present" owner said should be explained as being of a given year or more precise date, otherwise it is not encyclopedic. I would not mind this entry being edited down, but I have no doubt that this "Devil's Den" is a cave in Maryland.

I completely disagree with the deletion nominators purported suggestion for an alternate text, which is basically a joke. That is the best he/she can write given their lack of knowledge and sources about the topic and their arbitrary decision to reject all information which is apparently from the "Caves of Maryland" source, which is apparently an excellent source on the topic. In Wikipedia, we benefit from various contributors having access to off-line sources and providing good material based on them. We don't need to delete anything that one editor doesn't believe because they have not the same background or access to information. For example, should we delete Wikipedia's coverage of Einstein's theory of general relativity, merely because you and I don't really grok it? --Doncram (talk) 20:32, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Doncram Why are you ignoring the fact this is all basically original research? As an admin, you must be familiar with it as it's "one of three core content policies" of Wikipedia. A citation improvement need has been up for 7 years and no one has done anything, so per WP:OR it can be deleted since almost none of the content can be verified. Leitmotiv (talk) 21:24, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is nonsense; you have no basis to belief that there is any original research at all. It seems rather more likely that the list of caves is based on the apparently excellent source, "Caves of Maryland", which you have not obtained. You also would completely dismiss that source, because it is too directly on-topic and valid as a source, so much so that you wish to term it "primary" and therefore not allowed, which is incorrect reasoning. For one thing, see wp:PRIMARY (i think it is) about how primary sources can in fact be used with appropriate care. I strongly believe that the "Caves of Maryland" is a perfectly valid source for a list of caves in Maryland. From what is reported in this Wikipedia article, it is a well-produced result of multiple studies, revisions, involvement of many parties; there is no reason to dismiss this as if it is merely one spelunker's personal and creative diary.

Just to share: I happen to work mostly on articles about historic sites listed on the U.S. National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The vast majority of the 63,728 NRHP articles in Wikipedia are each mostly based on the available NRHP nomination document for each site. I think you would want to delete them all because you would claim those are all invalid sources. Well, the consensus of Wikipedians is against that, because the documents are held to be well-constructed, reviewed works that come out of an editorial process better than Wikipedia's own process. Each document does include some primary information about its site, including reporting on the then-current condition of the property in the nominator's observation, but they also reflect expertise of the nominator and of editors/reviewers, and they also utilize and reference other sources, so they include secondary or tertiary type information. You have zero idea, apparently, of the quality of "Caves of Maryland" source and the process by which it was generated in its initial 1950 form and later updates, or you dismiss what is available about it (and is included in the article) being apparently of quite good quality.

I will acknowledge one thing for you: it is conceivable that language in the Wikipedia article hews too close to the "Caves of Maryland" source. On NRHP articles, I and other editors occasionally find that a new contributor has inappropriately copied from the NRHP nomination document. For example, the other day I removed a lot of text from one NRHP article because I compared the NRHP document to the Wikipedia article and found there to be inappropriate overlap. However, the vast majority of NRHP articles are fine, and pass review when the main source document is checked. Often new editors write in different style, and just need to be coached to use inline citations to make the work better. If/when you do obtain the "Caves of Maryland" source and find specific problems, then it would be appropriate to edit down any problematic overlap. But based on my experience with multiple new editors of NRHP articles over many years, my best guess here is that the material is fine (but could be improved with editing as I suggest on two examples above).

This AFD raises issues which are appropriate for the article's Talk page (and which have been raised there and have obtained some discussion, including by editors User:Thincat and User:DMACKS). I see no basis for deletion as proposed. --Doncram (talk) 21:51, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Doncram Just one quick comment. As a "spelunker" I do have basis, and a lot of this reads like original research based on the edit summaries and the content itself and my familiarity with cave exploration (trip reports) reports. But the point remains, a citation tag has been in place for 7 years and no one is willing to cite the information to prove it's not original research, therefore it can be deleted.

More response, I fully understand how primary sources work. I understand you can use them sparingly, and usually to prove something about the source itself such as publishing information or to merely prove something exists. But repeatedly using a primary source can verge on, or become, plagiarism. This article has made no qualms, that the book is the direct source of information, and the focus of, for this article. The editors in the lede have even admitted the book "has served as an outline for the work to follow" which you blatantly omitted in your recent edit of the article, but is still proof of the intent of this page regardless of your intent to obfuscate it. Leitmotiv (talk) 22:01, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the "refimprove" tag from 7 years ago, so that is no longer a problem. I added "no footnotes" tag dated 2017 which calls for more specific inline citations.
Okay, I will take your word that much of the material sounds like what spelunkers term "trip reports". It appears to me that the article is based largely on the "Caves of Maryland" source, which indeed could be a nice compendium of spelunkers' "trip reports". It may indeed be a very well-verified, quadruple-checked, well-written such compendium, i.e. an excellent source to use in this article.
I hear your point that "repeatedly using a primary source can verge on, or become, plagiarism" and I basically don't agree that applies. I doubt that the list itself is copyrightable. The source "Caves of Maryland" indubitably lists numerous caves. Each cave can be mentioned in this list-article, with an inline citation for each one. Of course I do not have the source and I don't truly know whether or not the introductory material in the article follows too closely. But for an NRHP article there can be many many inline citations to just one NRHP nomination document, with no problem of plagiarism of wording or of content/organization. It depends: you have to see the damn source, which you confess you have not consulted.
You seem to contradict yourself: you want to dismiss all material as original research (i.e. made up by the original editor) and you want to dismiss it as entirely copied from one source (which by all appearances appears to be a truly excellent resource on the topic). Make up your mind.
Please note wp:AFDISNOTFORCLEANUP applies. Just because you don't like the article, doesn't mean it deserves deletion. In fact, it is incredibly obvious that a list of caves in Maryland can be legitimately split out from the list of caves in the United States as a whole.
Your personal sense, stated at the Talk page, that the article "seems like original research" is in fact your personal speculation, i.e. pretty much it is your own original research, and is not basis for deletion of the article or any material in it. It seems silly to try to discuss anything much more without someone actually consulting the source. Tell you what: withdraw this AFD to avoid further waste of time. Figure out how to buy a copy of the book, or better buy two copies. Send me an email and I will give you my mailing address and I will reimburse you for the cost or pay for it myself in advance. But otherwise, if you have not consulted the main source, this AFD is really useless. --Doncram (talk) 22:28, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The book is likely out of print, so that's a moot point. Perhaps you do bring up a good point about considering whether or not such an article should exist separate from the fact that the article is of poor quality. The article I believe falls under Wikipedia:Listcruft anyway and as an alternative could be merged with List of caves in the United States. Of course, only the most notable caves should be listed, every hole in the ground does not deserve a mention.--Rusf10 (talk) 22:57, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's available for $9.99 (not sure if this is 1950 version or 1971 version) or $35 (1971 version) and up, in 2 seconds looking at Amazon for used copies. I await the deletion nominator contacting me privately.
I don't think the article should be merged into the U.S.-wide one, because its list of specific caves is already very large and it also includes nice introductory setup about the geology of Maryland, etc., which is too long for the U.S.-wide list. It is fine for this to be split out on basis of size.
The article includes a nice one-sentence definition of what size caves count for the list-article, namely that the cave has to be big enough to hold a human. It is highly appropriate for editors of a list-article to discuss inclusion criteria at the Talk page of the article. Since "Caves of Maryland" adopts the stated definition, it is probably good for this list-article to use the same. It is not an arbitrary cutoff; it is the cutoff adopted by the premier source on the topic. If there is a different (larger size) cutoff used at the U.S. list-article, then the Maryland section there could just list the bigger Maryland caves which meet that cutoff, while using the smaller size cutoff in the separate Maryland article. --Doncram (talk) 23:14, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

According to the article two definitions of a cave are given 1. "All caves given in the 1976 republication of Caves of Maryland will be listed below by county" and 2."For purposes of this article, a cave is defined as any subterranean cavity large enough for a human to enter. This definition was adopted by the Caves of Maryland source and led its authors to include several shelter caves, fissures, and mines that in states with larger, more complex cave systems, might otherwise go unlisted." I don't think shelter caves and mines are worthy of inclusion here. According to the second definition I could dig a hole in my backyard and as long as a person could fit in it, I could include it in the article.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:49, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Really? If you did that and put it into the article then I would probably call that vandalism. You would not have any source documenting as a cave meeting the "Caves of Maryland" standard, though, so you wouldn't put it in, and it would not be an issue. I doubt there are unnatural examples like your hypothetical one, but is there a specific cave listed in the book and this article which you wish to object to, and call for revision of the current item inclusion standard? Please do bring it up at the Talk page for discussion.I think the two "definitions" are fine: yes we define the given standard, and we list all the examples covered in the available source. If there is a cave which doesn't meet both "definitions", then that can certainly be brought up. This hypothetical issue is not an issue for AFD. --Doncram (talk) 01:48, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Resetting my response here Doncram. I had a bigger response, but your guys' edits buried it and I lost my edit.

You mentioned that you switched the tag to "no footnotes". Sure, fine. But that doesn't change this article's citation problem going on 7 years. Call it footnotes, call it references, the point is moot - almost nothing is cited.

You also mentioned "each cave can be mentioned in this list-article, with an inline citation for each one"... yeah, that's the point of my submission here. Each cave certainly could be mentioned, in fact, they just may be mentioned. But it looks like you finally hit the nail on the head here... there are no citations for any of the caves listed. Great recommendation Doncram, but it's been pointed out 7 years ago.

And lastly you suggest I contradict myself. Good point, I may just be contradicting myself in a manner of speaking, but as you can see it's easy to do. The article suggests it's following form of the book it intended (but failed) to reference these past years. What has happened in many cases, I suspect, is that original research was done. Certainly the intent was good when this article started but now we can't tell what is legitimate reference material and what is original research. My suggestion is to blow it up. Nary a thing can be transferred to an existing list. This article barely reads as a list and should be retitled, definitely reworked, and everything cited.

But again, the time to do all this was 7 years ago and not a single editor has lifted a finger. And no Doncram, I have no intention of buying a book for a one time use. Feel free though. I feel the editors who created this page should take up that mantle, they seem to be the experts.

As for Rusf10, I have no issue with what is and what isn't a cave, except maybe that Wikipedia already defines what a cave is at the Cave article. Consistency is important in my book. The only thing applicable here is that the article cave entries need citations. This article has pretty much nothing in that regard. Spot on assessment with the listcruft though, I made that same assessment on the article's talk page a month ago. Leitmotiv (talk) 03:01, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The "Caves of Maryland" document is available for free on-line, i find from browsing in the reference 3 in the article, the reference to MGS Online. Follow the link to PDF file from this Maryland Geological Survey webpage about its out-of-print but popular educational publication "Caves of Maryland". Corresponding to the example one-paragraph "Devil's Den" I quoted above, there is about a page and a half of text (on pages 39 and 40 of the document), and two figures. The current article's paragraph about it seems to be a decent summary; it does not appear to be a verbatim copy. All that is needed is an inline citation to the document, specifically referencing pages 39-40. There are different methods of implementing that page-specific citing in Wikipedia, including using the {{rp}} template.

There may well be other editing required, e.g. for the "Allegheny High School" cave, there is only very brief info available in the source, and the current Wikipedia article single sentence about it is reworded but not hugely different. When the source is about the same size as what you are trying to write, I find it is almost impossible to avoid close paraphrasing while still being accurate and not changing the meaning; I prefer to use an explicit quote rather than try to "summarize"; summarizing in your own words works when you are reducing down from a larger source.

So anyhow, there is editing to do in the List of caves of Maryland article, but it does appear to be improvable using the truly excellent source from the Maryland Geological Society. This AFD should be quickly closed as "Keep", and discussion moved to the Talk page of the article. --Doncram (talk) 04:03, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've never doubted this article is improvable as noted by my October comments on the article's discussion page. I have had doubts about whether anyone wanted to improve this article. Nothing has changed Doncram. The "no footnotes" tag still exists and the entire article needs citing, or large chunks are going to be deleted. Are you offering to do the legwork?

Also, looking at one of the entries and comparing it to the source - I-68 Caves is not mentioned anywhere in your source. It appears to be entirely original research just as I suspected. I went through and did a rough look at the remaining caves are in the source, and it looks like almost the entire county of Garrett is original research. A few of the other counties have a couple unsourceable entries as well. I'd guess 70% of the article could be cited by this once source, which suggests the original writeup for this cave was correct that is was essentially copying this source as nearly as it could, making it the primary source, by definition and by straight comparison. This article has to be very careful not to plagiarize. Leitmotiv (talk) 04:35, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, we'll keep it. This makes most of it verifiable and article can be improved provided someone wants to commit to a significant cleanup. However, there still has to be a better standard for which caves to include. That book lists 148 caves, not all of them can possibly be notable enough for wikipedia.--Rusf10 (talk) 04:45, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep thanks to Doncram's excellent detective work the article can be referenced adequately and improved. Any plagiarism or copyright issues (if the are any) can be resolved. Thincat (talk) 22:34, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^{Babymissfortune} 03:34, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as per Doncram, don't need to rehash the voluminous discussion. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:16, 9 December 2017 (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.