Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Native Americans and World War II


 * 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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 05:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Native Americans and World War II

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This page was created to pacify a disruptive editor who was adding large amounts of material to the House Made of Dawn article. Essentially, I just hived off a big chunk of off-topic text and created an article to cover it (this action was approved by the mediator in the original dispute). Since then, the disruptive editor has been revealed to be someone who had already been banned for copying large amounts of material from paper encyclopedias into Wikipedia. For that reason, I suspect though can't prove that this entire article may be a copyvio. Even if that weren't the case, however, the fact is that this is a total dog's breakfast of an article. The topic may well be encyclopedic, but without anyone coming forward in well over a year to rewrite it, and without myself having the time to research the (large) subject extensively, it's just a mess that would probably put off anyone wanting to write about Native experiences in the second world war. Vizjim (talk) 18:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak delete I've never heard anything about Native Americans having any invlolvment in WWII, and I'm somewhat of a History Buff, so it's probably not very notable if I don't know about it. User:Radman622 20:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * comment That's odd - because I'm no kind of WWII buff and I had heard of it; anything about WWII that even I have heard of must surely be notable. --Paularblaster (talk) 21:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * See Code talkers and Windtalker. Noroton (talk) 21:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep This has been around since July 2006 with only one incomprehensible footnote? Violates WP:V. So let's make it a stub. But a Google search shows that sources do exist -- in fact there are plenty of them out there, including this bibliography and this excerpt and this on the Navajo Code Talkers. I don't think we should delete something where we see sources exist and the topic is encyclopedic, although I'm sympathetic with the idea of deleting. Unverified material can certainly be removed. Noroton (talk) 21:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep While the article is in need of references and cleanup, neither is reason for deletion, particularly since the topic is notable and sources most certainly exist. (Hey, they've made blockbuster movies about it!) At the very least, the article can be either stubbed, redirected to Code talker, or stubbed and add links to code talker and windtalker to the "see also." LaMenta3 (talk) 21:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is absolutely a notable topic and needs sourcing and cleanup. I don't find it a terrible mess, either, just wanting in referenced material. For starters, 2500 struck me as an exceptionally low estimate for Native Americans in the military during the war; the Pentagon estimates over 44,000 served in theatre alone. --Dhartung | Talk 22:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I knew about this before reading the article, and it is wikilinked enough above that I won't rehash their arguments. Completely notable, worthwhile, educational and the reason we have encyclopedias.  Pharmboy (talk) 22:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - Definitely should be kept. Wanting articles can be cleaned-up, but it's not a valid deletion argument. matt91486 (talk) 00:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and send to cleanup. You haven't heard of the Navajo Codetalkers?  Malinaccier (talk) 00:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand. The only thing I knew about it previously was the use of the Navajo language for secure radio correspondence and the use of Navajo people to translate it. That does not seem to be mentioned, but it is very notable. --Bduke (talk) 02:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.   —Nick Dowling (talk) 08:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I'm a bit sceptical of the overall value of many of these 'groups in World War II' articles (the material would be better placed in the relevant national histories of WWII or articles on the plight of the relevant group), but this topic seems notable and it should be possible to find references. --Nick Dowling (talk) 08:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, I see where you are all coming from. Change vote to stub - a lot of the material here has to go, from the risk of copyvio if nothing else. I do hope that somebody cleans it up at some point, though. Vizjim (talk) 17:52, 15 January 2008 (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.