Talk:Chickens Warrups

[Untitled]
Hi all,

After a user challenged the notability of this Wikipedia article I created (my first), I thought it raised an interesting question for the larger community (and perhaps one that has already been answered in the past):

Do the leaders of small, renegade Native American bands merit inclusion in Wikipedia?

The subject in question led a small village of "disaffected" Native Americans from a few different tribes, numbering about 100 in all; dealt land to settlers to which he claimed he held rights; complained to colonial authorities on multiple occasions about settlers' dealings with him; and according to one historian, appeared to have plotted some kind of aggressive act to bring other tribes "down" on farmers and settlers in the area where he lived.

There is very little historical information about him out there -- I have been able to find only three or four references to citations in colonial records and scholar articles, and so the Wikipedia article itself is by necessity brief, only about five paragraphs long.

I would be interested to know whether marginal Native American leaders who led renegade bands have been chronicled on Wikipedia. It struck me as worthy of the historical record, but it is a borderline case and I could see how other's could view him as not having sufficient historical weight to merit his own article.

I posted this message to the Teahouse function, hoping it will provide a little clarity; hope others weigh in as well.

Thanks,

Casoulman (talk) 11:54, 29 April 2014 (UTC)Casoulman (talk) 12:02, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

As an update, a Wikipedia user clarified the policy for me, which I think would lead me to delete the entry I created on Chickens Warrups, the exchange is below:

Hello, CasoulmanThe criterion for accepting a subject for an article in Wikipedia is quite clear and simple, but not what people unused to Wikipedia might expect. It is not importance, fame, or worthiness: it is simply what Wikipedia calls "notability"; in other words, has the subject already been written about in multiple reliable places, independent of the subject, such as major newspapers or books from reputable publishers? The sources do not have to be online, or even in English (though it's easier if they are) but they have to exist, and treat the subject at some length. So, if there have been books, or newspaper or journal articles about these leaders, then they "merit inclusion", and any article must cite these sources to demonstrate this fact. If there haven't been, then no matter how important they were historically, they may not have Wikipedia articles; for the simple reason that it will be impossible to write a satisfactory Wikipedia article about them. --ColinFine (talk) 14:36, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay, thanks ColinFine -- by that standard, my entry on Chickens Warrups would appear to not merit a separate article in Wikipedia, then. I have found multiple historical resources that mention him (colonial records, historical book and mentions in articles published in academic journals), but all reference him in relation to the history of Connecticut, and not profiling him alone as an independent figure of historical significance. I may delete the article I wrote (assuming one can do so), but will wait a few days for any additional comment here. Thanks again ...Casoulman (talk) 14:56, 29 April 2014 (UTC)Casoulman (talk) 15:15, 29 April 2014 (UTC)