Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indigenous Tribes to the Elk Grove Region


 * 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   merge to Elk Grove, California. ‑Scottywong | spill the beans _ 17:07, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Indigenous Tribes to the Elk Grove Region

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

It seems to me that the materials here are not deserving of their own article, but best served in the respective articles about the city and/or region as well as the articles about the tribes. Killiondude (talk) 05:50, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Having a 4% Native population would be significant enough for me to think an article would be appropriate; however, Elk Grove appears to be only .6% native per Elk Grove, California. Ryan Vesey 05:54, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 1 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Merge to Elk Grove, California. Currently there is nothing in the history section about the indigenous peoples, but there should be a paragraph there, as there is in most California city articles. There could also be a mention of Elk Grove in the articles about the three tribes. (Per Cullen below, the tribe articles should refer to the broader area - for example "the Sacramento area", not "Elk Grove".) Anything more is not warranted - certainly not a separate article. The references provided do not justify a separate article, and Category:Native American tribes in California shows only one other such article here, which covers a much broader geographic area. --MelanieN (talk) 16:25, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge & Redirect to Elk Grove, California as suggested by MelanieN. First let me say that the article that is the subject of this AfD is largely subject to WP:BURDEN. As for the notability of this list, the subject of this list does not appear to have received significant coverage, as seen from this search of news articles, and this search of books. That being said what can be verified falls under the scope of the history section of the Elk Grove article. Therefore, a merger and a redirect to the section is a way to preserve the search term, and to keep what verified content there is in the article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:09, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge with no need for a redirect. This is not a plausible search term. I know the area well and there is nothing about what we call "Elk Grove" today that would have distinguished it in pre-modern times it from what we call "Sacramento" today. Southern Sacramento is indistinguishable from northern Elk Grove. I am all in favor of improving our coverage of the Native American peoples of California, and have tried to make some small contributions toward that goal, but this sort of material as a separate article belongs in discussion of the tribal groups of natural geographic regions, not artificial modern city boundaries. This "topic" doesn't exist as a discrete topic, in my opinion.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  02:32, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Support merge to Elk Grove, California. -Uyvsdi (talk) 21:31, 4 April 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi
 * 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.