Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Line of succession to the Choctaw throne


 * 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:24, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Line of succession to the Choctaw throne

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-sourced, non-notable, original research, merger discussion into Choctaw resulted in a consensus to delete this article. Since this was deprodded, I'm sending it to AfD in hopes that notability, original research, and lack-of-source issues will be quickly resolved. If they aren't, I strongly recommend deletion. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  04:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete as I am the nominator. Will consider changing if reasons for nomination go away.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  04:14, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete There is no evidence given that the living people mentioned are in the line of succession. The Choctaws' own website is not even cited. Steve Dufour (talk) 05:33, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as per my comments at Talk:Line of succession to the Choctaw throne. -- Jao (talk) 12:20, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete This is silly, and looks to me like a practical joke or a hoax. There is no evidence of a "Choctaw throne" or that the principal chief of the Choctaw tribe was a hereditary title that had a line of succession.  Like other Western Hemisphere nations, they elected their chiefs.  Maybe the Whitener kids are descendants of Thomas Leflore, who served as a chief of a district until someone else was elected to succeed him.  One might as well do a list of heirs to George Washington and call it the line of succession to the American throne.  Mandsford (talk) 16:32, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and Mandsford. --- RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive'  19:17, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: The primary editor of this article is known for disappearing for over a week at a time.  He does not have email and may not be aware of this AfD until after it closes.  He is aware of the notability and original research issues though.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  21:24, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been mentioned on Talk:Choctaw.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  03:49, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete No evidence of successive Choctaw "royalty" in my printed sources. The word king does show up in Gideon Lincecum's Traditional History of the Chahtas which is not referenced as a successive royalty but rather a chief/leader. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robfergusonjr (talk • contribs) 15:13, 24 September 2008


 * 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.