Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ah-ni-yv-wi-ya


 * 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 of the debate was keep. Neutralitytalk 18:26, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Ah-ni-yv-wi-ya

 * Delete. As the sole author, I want this content removed as I do not wish a site that allows lynch mobs and libel and defacement of information to act as a repository for our culture.  There's no guarantee that our information will not be defaced by anonymous internet users. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gadugi (talk • contribs) 03:15, 19 September 2005
 * Merge into Cherokee or Cherokee language --Icarus 05:27, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge into Cherokee. Penelope D 05:56, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. No valid criteria for deletion. TheMadBaron 10:57, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep: subject to cleanup and wikification, this looks like a good article. The impression given from this and other nominations is of a user suffering a hissy-fit because of some perceived slight. However, the information has now been released to Wikipedia under the GFDL which is AFAIK irrevocable. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 11:41, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Of course, this begs the question "Then why did you create the article if you want it removed?" I think it is good and useful encyclopedic information, and I'm glad you added it.  There has been no problem with defacement so far.  The wiki process is pretty good at dealing with defacement when it occurs, although unfortunately there is no way to prevent it.  Plenty of articles dealing with sacred subects do get defamed on occasion here, but this is only a surface phenomenon.  What is truly sacred cannot be defamed.  Codex Sinaiticus 13:16, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
 * The answer to that is pretty obvious. The creator got into some rahter nasty disputes with others on wikipedia, mostly if not compeltely unrealted to thsi article. In the course of this, it seems that at least one user posted derogatory language related to the creator's cherokee ethnicity, or at least he took it that way. See the history of the creator's talk page, his user contributions, and jimbo's recent post on WP:AN/I if you want more details. I can see why these events left the article creator very unhappy with wikipedia, although i think he is mistakenly attributing to all of us the acts of a very few. DES (talk) 13:39, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Galugi is reverting my attempts to clean up the article and is even refusing that it be categorized as an "ethnic group"-stub, claiming that the term is inherently racial . Could we just redirect this to Cherokee already? It has no value on its own and it's certainly not going to be stormed by the deletionist mafia or anything. / Peter Isotalo 06:38, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Cherokee. Gazpacho 19:52, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. An excellent article in the making. Gadugi: don't despair.... get other editors involved if you are having a hard time with some editors. We are here to help. &asymp; jossi &asymp; 21:43, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Cherokee. We don't need separate articles on native names. I cleaned up all of the rather chatty linguistic info, but there was nothing to merge. All of the relevant info is already present in Cherokee language. / Peter Isotalo 22:36, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. WP:POINT.  User:Zoe|(talk) 23:39, 19 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep. I regret my actions here. Also, please remove the term "ethnic group" and do not remove the breakdown of the language constructs.  This portion is extremely helpful to those trying to understand how Cherokee verb stems are constructed. Gadugi 18:33, 20 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I have reverted the redirect. The convention is that articels are not usually converted to redirects, moved, or blanked while an AfD discusiion is in progress. Moreover, assuming that it is verifiabel, the information here strikes me as relevant and should be kept soemwhere. The precise form of the article is another matter. I woulkd say to Gadugi, most people in the US who are not native americans tend to view "indian tribes" as more ethnic than political, and even though it is true that formal membership is a political act, and people may well be descended from native amaricans but not have any formal tribal membership, is it not true that such membership is generally only open to people with such ancestry? If so, it is not a "pure" political association, but more a combination of political and ethnic/racial identity. Correct me if I am wrong, please. DES (talk) 15:10, 21 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Response to DES This statement is essentially correct. Membership does require membership in a racial group, however, membbership in an Indian tribe is a political relationship with the US government.  It is the policy of the TRIBES to restrict ot members of their race, which is an issue of sovereignty.  The problem with using ethnic language to describe this is that under US law, the 14th ammendment which prohibits racial discrimination has been used over and over again by non-indians to claim they have the right to posessess eagle feathers, use and distribute drugs like peyote to non-indians, etc. under Laws which protect Native American Culture.  The Courts have had to rule that the relationship is political in order to protect our culture from people like these.  So public references, like an encycplopedia, could be used as Court exhibit over and over again in this stale and mouldy argument these people use to setup drug distribution businesses run by non-indians who prey off our culture, and bring us into disrepute.  So that's why I object to using the word, "ethic".  Also, this particular article is about the language.  The editor Karmosin tried to change it into an ethnic article by removing the language constructs.  The article should stay the way it is, as I created it and intended it as a starting point to teach others our language. Gadugi 22:35, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Ah I see your points. Thre ought to be a properly nuanced way to indicvate booth the political and the racial/gentic issues involve, but that kind of discusion realy belongs on the talk page of this article, not on this AfD discussion. I also see that an article about language is not the smae as an articel about the peopel who speak that language. Well it looks to me as if the result here will be keep, but there there is the ewndless process of debating and, one hopes, improving the article. I personaly would oppose a change to a simple redirect as things stand. DES (talk)
 * I don't see anything constructive in DES' revert of my redirect. The AfD is effectively over since Gadugi has voted against his own nomination and the article doesn't serve any purpose. We already have Cherokee which is about the exact same thing, except it uses the commonly used name of the tribe as per our naming conventions. Like I pointed out before; we don't keep 日本人 separate from Japanese people for a very good reason. What's there to argue here? / Peter Isotalo 06:45, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
 * An AfD is either over or not. The reason for not creating a redirect until the AfD is formally closed is to preserve the two-way link between the discussion and the article being discussed. DES (talk) 14:42, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
 * In any case, I think that the linguistc information in the article as it stands is of value, and doing a simple redirect amouts to delting this information. Either the information should be merged into Cherokee, or the article should stand as a separeate articel, with proper links. It is not particualrly urgent to do either, so the matter should be discussed on Talk:Cherokee or on Talk:Ah-ni-yv-wi-ya, or both, an an attempot made to come to a consensus on what do do. there was not a consensus here on a simple redirect without merging the info. Put up mergeto and mergefrom if you linke, to advertise a proposed merge. Or propose a simple redir on Talk:Ah-ni-yv-wi-ya and do it if you get something approaching consensus. I will arguie agaisnt such a redir -- unless there is evidence indiacting that the content of the current articel is false to fact, or is unverifiable. I trust that explains my views clearly. DES (talk) 14:42, 22 September 2005 (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.