Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chaloklowa Chickasaw


 * 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:25, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Chaloklowa Chickasaw

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Non-notable organization, article has been poorly cited since 2007 and is filled with spurious claims and original research. Under South Carolina law, this is not a "state-recognized tribe" but a "state-recognized group." -Uyvsdi (talk) 23:54, 9 September 2012 (UTC)Uyvsdi
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2012 September 12.  Snotbot   t &bull; c &raquo;  16:02, 12 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep - Native American peoples should be immediate keeps in the same way that small countries and their residents are immediate keeps. THIS WEBSITE of the South Carolina Indian Affairs Commission indicates that the Chaloklowa Chickasaw people are a "state recognized group." That's good enough, we're done. The differentiation between "recognized tribes" and other levels of recognition is bureaucratic, historical, and to some extent a function of modern demographics. The Kalapuya people of my home Willamette Valley, for example, are not an extant "recognized tribe," having been absorbed into a tribal confederation and been absorbed through intermarriage into other tribal groups. That does not mean that this First Nation (to use the Canadian term) did not exist and does not have a history. It certainly does and we shouldn't have to parse sources to prove its notability any more than we should have to for the Chaloklowa Chickasaw people (BTW: this should be the name of the article here based upon what I'm seeing working on the indigenous peoples of the Oregon Territory this past week). Carrite (talk) 18:45, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. State-recognized tribes differ dramatically from one another; it's far more than a matter of bureaucracy, and legitimate tribes gain federal recognition on an ongoing basis. For instance, many tribes in California do not currently have recognition but were recognized at the beginning of the 20th century and were never legally terminated. Unfortunately in the Southeast, there are hundreds of groups with spurious claims of Native heritage, many of which cannot be substantiated. South Carolina has several categories for state-recognition and this group is not a state-recognized tribe, but rather a "state recognized group". Besides the South Carolina Indian Affairs Commission listing them, they only appear in self-published sites, Wikipedia, and Wikipedia mirror sites, so their notability has not been established. And frankly their claims of Chickasaw heritage has not been established by reliable, published, secondary sources either. BTW Chickasaw is the ethnic group; no claim is made in the article that this group is an ethnic group. -Uyvsdi (talk) 21:19, 12 September 2012 (UTC)Uyvsdi


 * I think it is safe to say that this tribal band predates the internet, so one must be careful not to put all the eggs into that basket. The fact that the state Indian Affairs Commission recognizes the group should end the debate, in my opinion. Just run a search in Google Books for "Chaloklowa" and more hits will emerge: including A MENTION in Voices of Our Ancestors: Language Contact in Early South Carolina, by Patricia Causey Nichols and ANOTHER MENTION in Native American History For Dummies. And so on. We're not here to argue the merits of this claim or that; the fact is that the tribal group exists, and for me that's all I need to advise a Speedy Keep here... Carrite (talk) 22:15, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course it exists, but it is not a tribe (as per South Carolina Indian Affairs Commission). -Uyvsdi (talk) 23:09, 12 September 2012 (UTC)Uyvsdi
 * Would you accept the word "band"??? Be that as it may, the band is a state-recognized tribal entity. Carrite (talk) 20:04, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * As per the cited sources, it's a "state-recognized group." I rewrote the article based on what reliable sources are available, since the article's evidently not going anywhere. Now, at the very least, the information is fact-based. -Uyvsdi (talk) 23:58, 19 September 2012 (UTC)Uyvsdi
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 13:32, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 13:32, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:49, 19 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep per Carrite. K e rowyn Leave a note 23:14, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep as I agree with Carrite. The state recognition is sufficient for this demographic, regardless if it is a tribe or a group.  I, Jethrobot  drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 03:04, 26 September 2012 (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.