Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mississippi Choctaw Indian Federation


 * 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. v/r - TP 15:21, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Mississippi Choctaw Indian Federation

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This organization was not notable in the first place and now it no longer exists. Uyvsdi (talk) 17:09, 2 August 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi
 * Speedy Keep: I can't fathom the case that the organization was not notable. Being defunct has nothing to do with WP:Notability. Per WP:CORP non-commercial "organizations are usually notable if they meet both of the following standards:
 * The scope of their activities is national or international in scale.
 * Information about the organization and its activities can be verified by multiple,[1] third-party, independent, reliable sources."
 * As a legitimate government of the Choctaw Nation, they meet #1. The 2 6 sources satisfy #2 in spades. Toddst1 (talk) 17:52, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: Any activities they have performed could be mentioned in the Choctaw article under the appropriate history section. -Uyvsdi (talk) 18:25, 2 August 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi
 * That's what you do if it's not notable. Since this article satisfies WP:CORP, it "is a valid subject for a separate Wikipedia article dedicated solely to that organization" We have policies for cases exactly like this. Toddst1 (talk) 19:53, 3 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - The provided sources does not reinforce its notability, if it was non notable before its closure why should it be kept here after it? Its notability factor seems to be locally limited and WP needs to provide a greater context to make an article encyclopedic or else WP would be filled with fancruft and locally known organizations and federations. Eduemoni↑talk↓  17:39, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Since when is a national government a "locally known organization"? Toddst1 (talk) 18:21, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Keep The subject is notable per WP:CORP.  Puffin  Let's talk! 20:43, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep as sources more than cross the verifiability and notability thresholds. This was, for a time, a recognized national government and the number of those is small enough to prevent the encyclopedia from running out of paper covering them. - Dravecky (talk) 21:21, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: fair enough, but can I refer you to the List of unrecognized tribes in the United States? -Uyvsdi (talk) 22:36, 2 August 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi


 * Merge to Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians or Choctaw and redirect. Seems to just barely pass notability, but doesn't seem like enough to warrant an article. Unless somebody would like to spend some time fleshing it out from its stub status?  He  iro  00:31, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 3 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep: Notable per WP:CORP, with multiple independent sources. Altairisfar (talk) 19:28, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the Alabama-related deletion discussions, Mississippi-related deletion discussions, and Oklahoma-related deletion discussions.  Altairisfar (talk) 19:36, 3 August 2011 (UTC) (UTC)

Keep Notable per WP:CORP. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:05, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Several books cover this particular dissident tribal government.  Among them are Beyond red power: American Indian politics and activism since 1900, and Lumbee Indians in the Jim Crow South: race, identity, and the making of a nation and The Choctaws: Cultural Evolution of a Native American Tribe.  Their concerns were discussed in a Congressional hearing in 1934.  The history of this faction is a notable part of the development of a unified Choctaw tribal government.  Cullen 328   Let's discuss it  02:09, 4 August 2011 (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.