Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chippewas of Georgina Island First Nation 33A


 * 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 no consensus. Although bolding a "neutral" !vote, FUNgus guy actually argued for keeping the article and despite two relists there were no further comments. A redirect can be created through normal editing.  So Why  13:55, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Chippewas of Georgina Island First Nation 33A

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Everything in the article is adequately explained in the Chippewas of Georgina Island First Nation, there is no need for another article that also fails to be notable enough to warrant an article by itself. Also a stub. The Verified Cactus 100% 20:01, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Comment Also see Articles for deletion/Chippewa Island The Verified Cactus 100% 20:02, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Chippewas of Georgina Island First Nation. While certainly it's possible in principle for a First Nation and the Indian reserve it lives on to qualify for two separate articles as two separate topics, since one is a group of people and the other is a geographic entity, in actual practice it's somewhere between extremely hard and virtually impossible to actually write anything genuinely substantive about the reserve beyond a boilerplate statement that it exists and is occupied by the First Nation, the end. If we could write and source anything genuinely substantive about the reserve as a geographic entity beyond simply reduplicating content from the nation article, or if there were an WP:XY problem because the reserve was shared by multiple distinct First Nations groups, then there would be a case for separate articles — but neither of those situations applies here. If all we can really write or source is a boilerplate statement that the reserve exists, then it should simply be addressed as part of the nation article instead of standing alone as a separate permastub. By the same token, we don't maintain separate articles about Toronto as a geographic entity and "Torontonians" as a cultural one; we address both aspects in tandem in the same article. Bearcat (talk) 17:46, 10 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep, even as a permastub. It is a distinct geographic entity, delineated by INAC, and separate from the municipalities and even the province surrounding it. I created this, and many other reserve stubs, in an effort to address Wiki's lack of indigenous content. It invites others to add content specific to the reserve. Also, Chippewa Island is a shared reserve, b/w Chippewas of Georgina Island, Chippewas of Rama and Beausoleil. FUNgus guy (talk) 06:21, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * "Distinct geographic entity...separate from the municipalities and even the province surrounding it" is not a claim that applies differently to a First Nations reserve than it does to a town or city: the exact same thing could be said of Toronto, Mississauga, St. Thomas, Greater Sudbury, Ottawa, Cobden and Hearst, which are all distinct geographic entities with defined boundaries that exist separately from other entities at that level of geography too. And the problem with reserve stubs is there's rarely if ever anything that can be said about the reserve beyond "it exists and is occupied by a First Nation", for the same reason that we don't keep one article about a city as a geographic entity and a separate article about the culture and history of the people who live in it: we discuss both aspects in one article. Bearcat (talk) 15:44, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * A First Nation is an entity that differs from a municipally-delineated population. It encompasses the band government (or equivalent), all of its traditional territory and its off-reserve population as well. As such, I see this in a nation-to-nation sense: X First Nation and Y Reserve as separate pages in the same vein as Canadians and Canada are. FUNgus guy (talk) 06:15, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The difference being that there's actual substance that can be written about "Canada" and "Canadians" as separate topics from each other, beyond just "Canada is a place that exists and is populated by Canadians, the end" — but that latter is all that can be written here. We have a lot of names of First Nations reserves that exist solely as redirects to the article about the First Nation that populates them, rather than as separate permastubs that add nothing of substance about the reserve as a separate topic in its own right. Bearcat (talk) 17:01, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
 * There are numerous examples of unincorporated white settlements that have pages, many of which are nothing more than permastubs. So why call out the indigenous lands as being 'not-noteworthy'? FUNgus guy (talk) 02:17, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Because that's not what I'm doing — those unincorporated "white" settlements you're talking about don't pass WP:GEOLAND either, and should properly be redirected to a parent topic (i.e. the municipality that they're located in) rather than standing alone as separate permastubs that aren't demonstrating or sourcing any proper notability. Per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, the existence of bad content about one thing does not reify into an exemption from our sourcing and notability standards for other comparable things just because you falsely accuse another Wikipedia editor of racism — it means the bad content about the first thing should be redirected or deleted too, and just hasn't been noticed yet. In actual fact, when I come across an unreferenced or minimally referenced one-line permastub about a "white" hamlet or neighbourhood, I regularly redirect it to its parent municipality in accordance with WP:GEOLAND. But I can only do that with articles that I come across — I do not have a responsibility to go on a comprehensive safari to track down every redirectable stub that might exist anywhere in the entire country, but only to address the notability and sourcing prospects of articles that are brought to my attention.
 * The unincorporated "white" settlements aren't supposed to be handled differently than my initial response to the nomination — this is not here because Wikipedia policy, or any Wikipedia editor, is treating First Nations reserves differently than what "white" settlements get. Both types of settlements are supposed to be handled in the same way I've proposed here, namely by redirecting the geographic permastub to a larger parent topic if they're not sourceable or substanceable as more than just "this exists, the end", and this just happens to be the particular instance that Cactus noticed at this particular time. Bearcat (talk) 16:02, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I apologize, I did not mean to suggest racial bias. And you make a good point, perhaps this particular article is better served as a redirect to the FN page until more substance can be written. Nobody brought up GEOLAND in the discussion Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Canada-related articles, so thank you. FUNgus guy (talk) 06:22, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I suppose my only opposition is the fact that First Nations reserves are not seen by Wiki-policy to be equivalent to other municipal-level entities. So Neutral. I can see the argument against poor-quality stubs. But if I can reference INAC, describe its geography, and give you the link to an official government map, is that much different from a railroad stop in the middle of nowhere, like Armstrong, Thunder Bay District, Ontario (mentioned in WP:CANSTYLE)? FUNgus guy (talk) 07:44, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Armstrong isn't a railroad whistle stop, but an actual community with an actual population and a governing body that gets it past WP:GEOLAND — and even if its article isn't actually spectacularly good, there is some genuine substance present about a former Canadian Forces station. And there's no potential redirect target for it — it's not part of any larger municipal entity and we don't have a separate article about the society and culture and history of the people who live in it, which means it's not closely related to any other article we could even consider merging the content into. Bearcat (talk) 15:59, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * My biggest issue is that FN reserves are not seen in the same light as municipalities or municipal-level entities. Even Unorganized South East Algoma District got a pass. FUNgus guy (talk) 05:19, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Question: How far does one have to go to get proper notability? I can see your argument that "This reserve exists, is occupied by X FN, the end." is not the most thrilling Wiki page. But how much more does one need? How about Obadjiwan 15E? Two extra sentences with a ref. Does that satisfy notability requirements? Or how about Goulais Bay 15A? One extra paragraph with refs. IMO all reserves deserve a page as a municipal-equivalent, but that discussion is not yet complete. FUNgus guy (talk) 23:51, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Also keep in mind that reserves are de jure federal exclaves within the prov/terr, where prov/terr laws do not apply. FUNgus guy (talk) 06:25, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Which is completely irrelevant to my point. Bearcat (talk) 17:01, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:40, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions.  M assiveYR   ♠  09:30, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions.  M assiveYR   ♠  09:30, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   12:58, 24 July 2017 (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.