Talk:Traditional Circle of Indian Elders & Youth

Notability
As far as I can see there are plenty of Ghits testifying to this being an active, widely reported and notable lobby organisation, but I'm at a loss for how to use them to improve the article. Would appreciate assistance from someone with expertise in the subject matter. - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:24, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Deleted prod
Immediately after posting this comment I'm going to remove the proposed deletion of this article. Sources establishing notability can be found here, here, here , here and here , and that's just in the first two pages of Google hits. - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:38, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Of those five, two are published by the subject, and another reads like a press release by another organization which collaborated with the subject. The other two are a bit more substantial. Always remember that raw Googlehits are basically worthless as a measurement. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  01:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Problems with some of those sources noted! As I've said, I don't have the experience in this area (I stumbled on this article and its problems by accident) but it's not so obviously non-notable as to not benefit from AfD, and I strongly suspect that at AfD we're going to discover it's just a badly written stub about an eminently notable organisation.  I don't ultimately care enough about it to go trawling the sources (or work them into the article) but it does seem like they do exist. - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:53, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you should strike "establishing notability" as you have conceded that the sources mentioned do not establish notability. Bongo  matic  02:01, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I haven't conceded that at all; I've conceded that three of the sources have reliability/independence issues. This source and this source are still perfectly valid reliable independent sources, and while I'm here I'll throw in this one which considers its input historically important to Native American peoples.  I respect both of you guys as editors, and if you really feel that the notability of this group is in question I'd invite you to take it to AfD for a wider analysis. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Potential sources
Based on this

the organization does not appear to be notable. Bongo  matic  01:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Not sure I follow your reasoning here. I see dozens of book hits, several pages of apparently relevant general Google hits, and a few scholarly articles.  Less news articles than we might expect but that's of itself not a decisive indicator of non-notability.  It may be that all these sources have significance or independence issues but that's not immediately obvious on the face of the search. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:10, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If you have looked into the hits in more detail, you can see that the book hits are either directory entries (not establishing notability) or attributions. There does not appear to be any coverage of the organization in the books or scholarly articles. Did I miss some, or are you simply making a guess based on number of hits? Bongo  matic  02:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not able to read the books or determine whether they purport to be all-encompassing directories or selective volumes using editorial oversight to promote only notable organisations; I'm therefore making an assumption that errs in favour of notability. Repeated attributions may themselves be indicative of notability, especially where they're made in publications subject to editorial oversight.  To be clear, Bongomatic, I'm not saying you're wrong or misguided (your edit history shows that's a dangerous assumption to make!) I'm just saying I don't feel you're able to prove the lack of quality of these potential sources any more than I'm able to prove their quality, and in the mean time several apparently significant independent reliable sources (above) continue to exist. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:37, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Sources and notability
I've expanded the article a bit and added a few more cites.

Indian Country Today Media Network may not be the Associated Press, but it serves a similar function for its audience, and thus constitutes a reliable source.

Common sense would suggest that when the traditional elders of Turtle Island meet on a regular basis at the Council Fire of the Onondaga, which has been the traditional seat of the Iroquois League since at least 1722, it is probably a historically significant phenomenon even if it is not fully documented in writing by Twitter, network news, and grad students writing their dissertations. :) Djembayz (talk) 15:54, 28 April 2013 (UTC)