Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black Coyote


 * 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 delete. This individual appears to have been notable only in connection to a single event. Therefore, the consensus in this case hinges on whether or not his role in the event could be considered "highly significant" to a degree that warrants a standalone article on him. Several reliable sources were provided that mention Black Coyote and verify his role in the event. However, none of the sources provided in the discussion seem to discuss Black Coyote in any lengthy or significant way that would imply that his role in Wounded Knee was so profoundly important that it requires a standalone article to discuss it. This, of course, doesn't mean that Black Coyote and his role at Wounded Knee can't be included anywhere in Wikipedia. Indeed, descriptions of his role in the event already appear in Wounded Knee and could easily be expanded without causing the main article to become too lengthy. Therefore, the argument to delete is significantly more convincing. No prejudice against recreating the article as a redirect, if desired. ‑Scottywong | [communicate] || 06:18, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Black Coyote

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. Unable to locate any significant biographical details in secondary sources. The article suggests this person is notable for one event. This source describes a Black Coyote chief, but little biographic details are provided. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:18, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:18, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 14:02, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 14:02, 26 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Redirect I agree with the nominator that the subject fails WP:BASIC. The coverage in the sources provided (at least those I could open) is not substantial and the subject is only mentioned in passing. Overall, it looks like the subject clearly falls within WP:SINGLEEVENT. From the source provided by the nom it emerges the subject did play a role in starting the Wounded Knee Massacre. There should not be a stand-alone article on him but I would think that a redirect to Wounded Knee Massacre is in order. Modussiccandi (talk) 11:28, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Having read the below discussion, I think I should restate my original position. It is beyond doubt the massacre was a very significant event and that Black Coyote played a large part in it. Given that the sources say nothing about him except that he triggered the massacre, I think it would be against the spirit of WP:1E to have a stand-alone article on him. I simply fail to see why a likely stub must be retained when his role could be done justice within the event's article. Therefore, my view is still redirect or merge. Modussiccandi (talk) 23:13, 1 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:1E which states that "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate.". Andrew🐉(talk) 17:37, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:1E also states there must be "large coverage of the event in reliable sources that devotes significant attention to the individual's role". Would you be able to list some of these? Magnolia677 (talk) 18:02, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Google Books search . There are so many books with so many hits I figured it would be considered ref bombing.  --  Green  C  20:30, 29 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep. It could be merged, but I think that having a separate subpage in this case is good, simply for the reasons of readability and a better separation of material. My very best wishes (talk) 21:34, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Clearly a noteable historic figure and pivotal in an important event. WP:Not paper.  7&amp;6=thirteen (☎</b>) 12:19, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 * delete I can only view one of the sources, the others come up with 404 errors. The one source I can view is one line.Slatersteven (talk) 14:07, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete, per WP:SINGLEEVENT. There is no reason to believe that WP:BASIC is met on the sources cited. —Brigade Piron (talk) 17:29, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete/redirect Clear BLP1E failure, lacks any biographical details beyond the incident that is already described in the main event article. "The individual's role" is not such "a large one" that a separate page is warranted since not only is there no further information beyond the event his role was just the accidental discharge of a rifle among so many people involved! Reywas92Talk 20:52, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep His role in this "one event" was significant. https://www.britannica.com/event/Wounded-Knee-Massacre The massacre was the climax of the U.S. Army’s late 19th-century efforts to repress the Plains Indians. It broke any organized resistance to reservation life and assimilation to white American culture.  So his role in this is quite significant, he caused them to open fire, otherwise this never would've happened.   D r e a m Focus  05:32, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per reasons listed above.  on camera  05:42, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete not seeing SIGCOV in multiple RS to satisfy WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 07:51, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - important historical figure who played an important role during the Plains wars. Can it be improved, yes. Is that a reason for deletion, no. Netherzone (talk) 22:21, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep as he passes notability and there are sources to back it up. Important role in bringing about an important event. The article is all sourced now except for one passage that could go, in my opinion, if it can't be cited. We have at least one other article on someone who brought about a massacre--see Edward Garrick. I don't know how the nominator and others missed sources in Google Books and elsewhere. Not fine WP:BEFORE work, but then so many American Indian articles were nominated in such a short time that they may have been overlooked. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 23:46, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about "Not fine WP:BEFORE work". Go to the article and look at the eight source cited. Of the ones that aren't dead links, hidden behind a NYT paywall, or redirects to finding aids, Black Coyote is mentioned in just TWO sources.  Behold:
 * Here, where his name is mentioned twice. That's it.
 * Here, where all that's written about Black Coyote is:
 * "Turning Hawk said that Black Coyote 'was a crazy man, a young man of very bad influence and in fact a nobody.' He said that Black Coyote fired his gun and that 'immediately the soldiers returned fire and indiscriminate killing followed.'"
 * and
 * "The troopers found only two rifles, one of them a new Winchester belong to a young Minneconjou named Black Coyote. Black Coyote raised the Winchester above his head, shouting that he paid much money for the rifle and that it belonged to him. Some years afterward Dewey Beard recalled that Black Coyote was deaf. 'If they had left him alone he was going to put his gun down where he should. They grabbed him and spinned him in the east direction. He was still unconcerned even then. He hadn’t his gun pointed at anyone. His intention was to put that gun down. They came on and grabbed the gun that he was going to put down. Right after they spun him around there was the report of a gun, was quite loud. I couldn’t say that anyone was shot, but following that was a crash.'"
 * Even the source calls him "a nobody". Magnolia677 (talk) 16:07, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , I can respond more fully later today or tomorrow, but some non-sequential notes for you:
 * Remember that it's not the state of sourcing in the article that matters but the sources in existence. "Unable to locate any significant biographical details in secondary sources" is not a problem I encountered. That was part of your nomination statement and that's what my comment was about.
 * The paywall comment is moot because you can't discount a source just because you can't read it. If you really want to read it, get Wikipedia library access or investigate local library options. Papers gotta stay in business.
 * The citations to books that talk about what films Black Coyote is portrayed in were added to verify statements in the article, not to prove notability. Not everything in an article has to prove notability.
 * Regarding your issues with the many other sources, I can review them line by line later, but I'm afraid I have my work cut out for me with the other 12 or so active AfDs on American Indians. Oh for a few extra hours in each day this week! DiamondRemley39 (talk) 16:23, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Magnolia, that the NYT is behind a paywall is irrelevant. WP:RSP states that the NYT is a reliable source. Netherzone (talk) 16:29, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I have an NYT subscription. The article "Army Denies a Wounded Knee Massacre" says: "On Dec. 29, the Indians encamped at Wounded Knee Creek were requested to turn in their arms. When only a few were handed over, a search of the tepees was ordered. According to most sources, the first shot was fired by Black Coyote, later described by another Indian, Turning Hawk, as “a crazy man, a young man of very bad influence and in fact nobody.”" That's the only reference to Black Coyote in that article. — Toughpigs (talk) 17:07, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Which supports what I wrote in my nomination; this person is notable for one event. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:14, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Per the one event guideline, "if an event is of sufficient importance, even relatively minor participants may require their own articles". We may not agree on whether he was a major or minor participant, but bringing about Wounded Knee is a sufficiently important event. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 17:38, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * No doubt we would also not agree on the word "may". Magnolia677 (talk) 17:53, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

, you use that "one event" argument a lot. If a soldier fights a battle and performs heroically in that battle and receives an award, returns home and lives the rest of his life in relative obscurity, does that one event get him an article here on Wikipedia? If you say no then I better see you nominate a good portion of most "Medal of Honor" award winners for deletion because they are notable for one event, otherwise just good soldiers doing their duty. Of course you won't do that, only nominate articles about American Indians you subjectively deem unworthy of an article. Since you brought it up, the part where he is called a "nobody" actually lends more credence to him being a "somebody" because he is the direct cause for the massacre. I find it so hilarious that had Black Coyote been a mass murderer he would have had an in-depth Wikipedia article detailing his entire life, especially if he were European or White.Tsistunagiska (talk) 19:59, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * A consensus of editors have agreed that recipients of a nation's highest award are presumed notable. I didn't see anything in the article about Black Coyote being in this situation.  As well, a consensus of editors have agreed that individuals notable for only one event are typically not notable.  Wikipedia has its own unique rules.  This isn't Facebook. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:11, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I won't insult you like you keep doing to me on these various articles. I will say that I don't Facebook so I wouldn't know how they do things there. You say that one event does not make a person notable and yet there are individuals with articles on Wikipedia who are only known for one event. Your use of the word, typically, denotes a subjective opinion that allows bias to enter the equation, whether malicious or not. Either they all are or they all aren't, right? I mean I've seen that argument used against these articles. He was the focal point that initiated the massacre and has more than one source provided. Had he just been another person present he wouldn't have had an article written about him.Tsistunagiska (talk) 15:10, 1 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Note to closing admin if this is looking like a delete, please wait another week to close as I'm gathering sources for the subject and others from my local library. Thanks. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 15:05, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment This man's critical role in a historic event is obvious. But quite frankly I'm not seeing any reason why this shouldn't just be merged with the massacre article. All we know of him is what he did at the beginning of the incident; no personal details, no biography other than what he did during the attempted disarmament, which is already described on the massacre article page. If we had more detail about him I'd see a better case for support. -Indy beetle (talk) 16:28, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge with redirect to Wounded Knee Massacre - we don't have enough in-depth sources to support a biography article; we don't know anything about the subject outside of his role at WKM. The reader will be better served reading about Black Coyote at the WKM article. Lev!vich 20:24, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep His role in this "one event" was significant. The massacre was the climax of the U.S. Army’s late 19th-century efforts to repress the Plains Indians. Notable historic figure. Can it be improved. Lightburst (talk) 13:36, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a definite keep because of his role in initiating one of the worst recorded massacres of an indigenous tribe in the US. Even the comments made denoting how he is a "nobody and crazy person" adds to his notability because it is published and because of his role. We have articles to mass shooters/murderers whose only "claim" to notability is their "one" event. Passes notability guidelines.Tsistunagiska (talk) 14:20, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The reason for that is because the media will then often produce lots of material on said mass shooters and then we've amassed so much biographical material on them that it's logical to split the article for one on the mass shooting and the other on the mass shooter. Everything on this article already does or should be included on the WKM article. This article is a redundancy. -Indy beetle (talk) 16:36, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Also: "A decision to cover a notable topic only as part of a broader page does not in any way disparage the importance of the topic" per WP:Notability. -Indy beetle (talk) 16:49, 3 October 2020 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.