Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Northern Cherokee Nation of the Old Louisiana Territory


 * 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. Slow speedy IAR keep. Why? Becuase this isn't going to be deleted even if it runs four more days. "the article does not deserve existence" attempting to validate a non-valid entity" are not reasons for deletion. While the article may have issues, these are issues that can be resolved by fixing it, not by deletion of the entire article.  StarM 02:03, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Northern Cherokee Nation of the Old Louisiana Territory

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

This page exists solely for the purpose of attempting to validate a non-valid entity calling itself by the name of the article. Like the so-called "Chikamaka", it is group of "wannabes", white people playing Indian and using the name Cherokee. The information is spurious, self-serving, misleading, and nearly all "sources" comes from persons directly connected to it (the NCNOLT), and the article does not deserve existence. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 13:11, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. If not federally, it does appear to be a state-recognized tribe.  Booksearch and scholarsearch for exact phrase: "Northern Cherokee Nation of the Old Louisiana Territory".  Certainly the question of recognition ought to be a part of the article, and it needs a re-write and better sourcing, but that is not a deletion rationale. Athanasius • Quicumque vult  14:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You are clearly completely ignorant of U.S. law regarding Native Americans. ONLY the U.S. government has the right to recognize a tribe or nation, therefore only federally-recognized tribes have any validity.  The sources for the article nearly all are from articles written by members of said organization for the purpose of attempting to prove its pretended validity.  The organization is fraudulent, the information spurious, and the presence of such an article on Wikipedia opens it up to legal action from the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma and the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 14:31, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Not if we rely on reliable sources. A Cherokee encyclopedia, Robert J. Conley (UNM Press, 2007) p.227; this also looks useful, if someone could get there hands on the complete copy.  You are right - only federally recognized tribes are validly federally recognized tribes ... however, others may also be considered notable - which is not a definition of law but an observation of the interest of others. Indeed, the very debate about whether or not this is a tribe, and the interest that debate has generate, speaks to notability. Athanasius • Quicumque vult  15:03, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * There are three, count them THREE, federally-recognized Cherokee tribes, and only three. Groups such as the "Northern Cherokee Nation of the Old Louisiana Territory" and the "Chikamaka" are analagous to groups of Trekkies (Star Trek fans) who "live the life"; i.e., dress up in the costumes all the time, use Starfleet ranks in discussions, in general live outside of reality.  Adults playing pretend are not noteworthy, just sad. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 15:08, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Chuck, existance here on Wikipedia does not necessarily make them federally recognized. They just have to be notable per the guidelines.  It appears they are. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 16:26, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, since the only reliable standard for judging the validity of a tribe is whether or not the tribe is federally-recognized and so-called "state recognition" has no legal standing, you are incorrect. You are arguments are nothing more than seeking validation of "state recognition" of Indian tribes, something completely invalid under U.S. law. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 16:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the dialogue. However, you misunderstand me.  I have no interest in arguing about the legality of any group's claims.  My only interest is the WP policy on notability, and I have not heard anything to convince me that this group does not meet that standard. Athanasius • Quicumque vult  17:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Since the sole purpose of the article is to support the validity of the group in question, then the validity of the group in question is most definitely relevant. Furthermore, it's established Wikipedia policy that such articles--those written purely for such purposes as this one--have no place here. Wikipedia has been striving for the past year to be a reliable source of valid information, not a catch-all for evey nutjob group in the USA. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 17:54, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Chuck, while I understand your ire here, I repeat: we aren't here to validate an existance. We're here to post things notable.  I'm in agreement that they're not federally recognized, but it is not by this alone we measure notability for any given tribe, nation, offshoot of tribe, et cetera.  Be that as it may, perhaps WP:GROUP should be reviewed. Likewise, I suggest you review WP:CIVIL, WP:NPOV, and for this article, WP:GROUP.  -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 17:58, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

This so-called "article" is written by a member of the "Northern Cherokee Nation of the Old Louisiana Territory", not by a third party, is full of factual errors, and deals with an organization of people falsely claiming to be Cherokee but who are recognized as such by no valid entity. There are serious POV problems also. Perhaps you haven't heard of the joint resolution of the CNO and the Eastern Band "Opposing Fabricated Cherokee 'Tribes' and 'Indians'", passed by both tribes in 2008; the text can be found at: http://taskforce.cherokee.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=y%2bJcRrV4oDc%3d&tabid=106&mid=2118. There is zero historical evidence that this group is anything other than one of the hundreds of such groups that has sprung up over the past couple of decades, and the continued existence of this article only serves to validate the fraudulent claims of the "NCNOTL". Chuck Hamilton (talk) 23:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, per my comments to the nominator. -- Dennis The Tiger  (Rawr and stuff) 16:26, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Struck vote per my speedy keep/close below. -- Dennis The Tiger  (Rawr and stuff) 17:10, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * In addition to being yet another of the hundreds of wannabe groups using the Cherokee name, this group also claims descent from Jewish Survivors of Masada. The hyperlink has already been blacklisted by Wikipedia.  The NCNOTL is not a valid group and this "article" should be removed. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 18:08, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Found another instance of the article, one with the complete text, which includes information about Gov. John Ashcroft's veto of state recognition; that's in Missouri, the state in which the NCNOTL is headquartered: http://israelinsider.ning.com/forum/topics/missouri-cherokee-tribes . Chuck Hamilton (talk) 18:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Chuck, this is great, but you have yet to provide a valid rationale for deletion. What I see is somebody who's doing a lot of POV pushing and is doing this because he doesn't like these people.  I see you bringing in plenty of resources.  In short, I see you providing a great case of how notable these people really are - which tells me you want them deleted because of just how notable (or notorious, as the case may or may not be) they are.  Do you really not see how foolish this is? -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 18:52, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep = weird but notable. Bearian (talk) 19:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Since the "Northern Cherokee Nation of the Old Louisiana Territory" has already had, by its own admission thru what its members have written in the article, two divisions resulting in two more self-styled "tribes", and since all three of these are just a few among hundreds of groups like them, there are no grounds for claiming notability for this group in particular. And maybe those who suggesting this article should remain ought to look at the cited works, at least half of which are to "articles" written by the "chief" of the NCNOLT herself. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 23:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep based on the sources cited, especially the source shown by the nominator. Notablity is based on independant sourcing, not the accuracy of a group's claims, otherwise there'd be a lot of pseudoscience and conspiracy theory articles getting the ax. Edward321 (talk) 23:45, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Can we get a headcount of the number of persons requesting "Keep" who are members of the "Northern Cherokee Nation of the Old Louisiana Territory"? The level of interest generated by my recommendation for the deletion seems rather contrived for such an inconsequential article, as well as an instant enough response to be an orchestrated effort.
 * HALF of the citations are from self-published sources of members of the NCNOTL, chiefly from the book written by the purported "chief" of the organization. As for notability, why is the "NCNOTL" any more notable than the two "tribes" which have "seceded" from it, or any of the other hundreds of pseudo-Cherokee groups? Chuck Hamilton (talk) 23:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I've reviewed the article in depth, and come to a conclusion - this AFD is bogus. I cannot spot any copyright problems on the page.  It is not vandalism, spam, a fork of content, a live biography, or in violation of WP:NOT or WP:NFT.  To me, it appears to not fall afoul of WP:GROUP, which is the relevant notability policy for this context.  Per the first !vote in the discussion, there seem to be reliable sources to this effect.  On the other side of the coin, we have the nominator, who has stated numerous seeming problems with the article.  His initial stance is the legality of this group - to which I can only say that, while the US does not recognize them, there is no law expressly forbidding their existance in the United States of America - or more correctly, there is no law expressly forbidding any tribes outside of those recognized by the US government.  He has come off as remarkably uncivil and accusatory, has responded to holes poked into his arguments with new arguments, and is generally coming off in such a way where I can no longer assume that he has put this forward in good faith in the slightest.  I have become convinced that, despite his long standing on Wikipedia, he is pushing an agenda. I am accordingly calling for a speedy keep and close of this AFD. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 03:13, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Whether this entity is deserving of federal recognition as a legitimate tribal nation is the responsibility of the U.S. government. Our purpose is to determine the notability of an encyclopedia article, which appears to meet Wikipedia's standards for inclusion. I would also urge the nominator to please be careful of his choice of words -- using "ignorant" and "nutjob" spoils the debate and does not strengthen his argument. Pastor Theo (talk) 03:22, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * While you are accurate in your characterization of my use the word "nutjob" in a pejorative sense, I used the word "ignorant" in its classic meaning of "lack of knowledge", in this case regarding American law on tribal recognition. The article is not notable because it was written about one of hundreds of groups usurping the Cherokee name with no grounds to do so, and was written by a member of that group whose sole purpose was to confere an undeserved validity of that group.  Within the text of the article itself, in that author's own words, is evidence that the NCNOTL is neither unique nor notable. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 04:46, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * With respect to the article's sources, the ones on general Cherokee history are valid, even if the conclusions drawn therefrom constitute "original research", but those specific to the "Northern Cherokee Nation of the Old Louisiana Territory" come soley from self-published, unverified "reasearch". Chuck Hamilton (talk) 04:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The question here is this: is Wikipedia a valid reference tool for useful information about legitimate subjects, in this case established, historical, legitimate Indian tribes, or is it a catch-all forum for all kinds of spurious, unverifiable misinformation that allows inclusions of "Indians" who are that in only a self-described and imaginary sense.

What's at stake for Wikipedia here is its credibility.

Chuck Hamilton (talk) 16:46, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * We have five keep votes. Why? We're not a vote here. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 17:10, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the accusation is that the !votes / comments here are all members of the NCNOLT. Athanasius • Quicumque vult  17:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * ROTFL! I've never even heard of these people until he mentioned them! -- Dennis The Tiger  (Rawr and stuff) 18:02, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Whether they have any historical basis is completely besides the point. They;re an organized group of some size, that has gotten some notice. That;'s sufficient. Our job here is not to decide who is and is not a Cherokee, or whether the names people use make sense. Doing so is POV and bias. DGG (talk) 07:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Wrong. Keeping the article legitimizes an illegitimate group.  Your comments conveniently ignore the other points about lack of sources, using self-published material as sources, etc., all of which cause further problems such as the fact that we only have the NCNOLT's word that is does, in fact, have the numbers it says.  The information on Wikipedia is supposed to be reliable and verifiable; none of the claims made in this article meet that standard.  Furthermore, the United States government has already decided which groups are legitimate Cherokee tribes--the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians, and the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma--and it is not the job of Wikipedia to attempt to overrule the American government, which is essentially what you are suggesting. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 08:16, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Where's it say that it legitimizes this in Wikipedia policy? -- Dennis The Tiger  (Rawr and stuff) 15:26, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The article is a LIE. The information is UNTRUE. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 15:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * ...so the article is a WP:HOAX? -- Dennis The Tiger  (Rawr and stuff) 16:35, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Why does the so-called "Northern Cherokee Nation of the Old Louisiana Territory" deserve an article more than any of the following:

THE CHEROKEE TRIBE OF NORTHEAST ALABAMA &bull; Echota Cherokee Tribe of Alabama &bull; CHER-O-CREEK INTRA TRIBAL INDIANS &bull; UNITED CHEROKEE ANI-YUN-WIYA NATION &bull; CHEROKEES OF SOUTHEAST ALABAMA &bull; The Langley Band of Chickamogee of Cherokee Indians &bull; Eagle Bear Band of Free Cherokees &bull; CHEROKEE RIVER INDIAN COMMUNITY &bull; Chickamauga Cherokee of Alabama &bull; ECHOTA CHEROKEE TRIBE OF ALABAMA WOLF CLAN &bull; United Cherokee Ani-Yun-Wiya Nation &bull; United Cherokees of Alabama &bull; Arkansas Cherokee Nation Lost Cherokee Nation of Arkansas and Missouri &bull; Arkansas Band of Western Cherokee INC Western Cherokee Nation of Arkansas & Missouri &bull; Chickamauga Cherokee Nation White River Band &bull; The United Cherokee Nation (UCN) Western National Office &bull; United Cherokee Nation &bull; The Cherokees of California &bull; Chickamauga Cherokee Indian Creek Band &bull; Tuscola United Cherokees of Florida & Alabama, Inc. &bull; Wolf Creek Cherokee Tribe, Inc. of Florida &bull; Cherokee Indians of Georgia &bull; Georgia Tribe of Eastern Cherokee Cane Break Band of East Cherokees &bull; S.E. Cherokee Confederacy &bull; BROAD RIVER BAND OF CHEROKEE &bull; The United Cherokee Nation (UCN) Eastern National Office &bull; Uganawvkalvgv Kituwah Ayeli &bull; Chickamauga Cherokee Band of Northwest Georgia &bull; Southeast Cherokee Confederacy &bull; Northern Cherokee Tribe of Indiana &bull; RedNation of the Cherokee &bull; Southern Cherokee Nation of Kentucky &bull; SOUTHEASTERN CHEROKEE COUNCIL, Inc. &bull; Amonsoquath Band of Cherokee &bull; Chickamauga Cherokee Nation &bull; Dogwood Band of Free Cherokees &bull; Northern Cherokee Tribe of Indians &bull; Cherokees of Hoke County &bull; Cherokee Powhattan Indian Association &bull; Cherokees of Robison and Adjoining Counties &bull; Osprey Band of Free Cherokees &bull; North-Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians &bull; Deer Council of Free Cherokees &bull; Tallige Cherokee Nation &bull; Southern Cherokee Nation &bull; Northern Chicamunga Cherokee Nation of Arkansas and Missouri &bull; Northwest Cherokee Wolf Band &bull; Southeastern Cherokee Confederacy of Pennsylvania &bull; Eastern Cherokee, Southern Iroquois & United Tribes of South Carolina, Inc &bull; Free Cherokee-Chickamauga &bull; Chikamaka Cherokee Band of the South Cumberland &bull; TENNESSEE RIVER BAND OF CHICKAMAUGAN CHEROKEE &bull; Chickamauga Circle Free Cherokee &bull; Elk Valley Band-Council of Chickamauga Cherokee &bull; Free Cherokee Tennessee River Band Chickamauga &bull; Red Clay Band of Southeast Cherokee Confederacy &bull; Etowah Cherokee Nation &bull; SOUTHERN CHEROKEE TRIBE AND ASSOCIATED BANDS IN TEXAS &bull; WOLF CREEK CHEROKEE INDIAN TRIBE of VIRGINIA

And that was a very short list; why is the "Northern Cherokee Nation of the Old Louisiana Territory" any more "notable" than any of these other pseudo-Indian groups? Chuck Hamilton (talk) 16:27, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * We have already explained it, so because you are not reading it, I will tell you yet again: there is demonstratable notability. It proves it. They provide evidence.  If you have a problem with it, then please take it up with the policy people for notability on Wikipedia.  This is the place to discuss whether they should be deleted, but as I point out above, I think you're pushing an agenda.  Now please, stop ignoring the rules, because you will not win by this.  A further point, your attitude isn't helping your arguments. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 16:35, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * You have not explained anything to me or anyone else. This group to which you belong is not notable just because you say it is.  The ONLY evidence your group provides for its alleged notablility is self-published material written by your "chief".  My agenda is the credibility of Wikipedia, which is lessened by the existence of this "article". Chuck Hamilton (talk) 16:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * ...and to what group do I belong, sir? If you think I belong to NCNOLT, then you are delusional - like I said above, I've never even heard of this group until you brought this up.  I'm now more convinced that you're not reading the discussions. Pay attention, man! -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 17:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, if not this wannabe group, to which one do you belong? Your arguments are irrational and you are not making any sense. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 17:03, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Furry fandom and the Unitarian Universalist church. And, I'm wiccan.  Deal with it. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 17:16, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Forgot to mention, I'm also a member of The Lumber Cartel (There is No Lumber Cartel(TINLC)(TM)). -- Dennis The Tiger  (Rawr and stuff) 18:36, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment to the extent the above groups have sources for notability there can be an article for each of them. If the article is accurate, the reader will be able to judge correctly their significance. The present article would appear to need considerable editing,  and will probably be a great deal shorter after non-specific material tis removed, but that is not the same as deletion. DGG (talk) 17:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * We have yet to see why this group, the NCNOTL, is notable. Other than persons such as yourself proclaiming that it is notable, there has been nothing written here to provide evidence of that notability.  Relying on the article itself is invalid because that itself was written by members of the group relying on self-published material written by the group's "chief".  I notice, btw, that you did not deny belonging to another one of these wannbe groups. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 17:28, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment I believe Natty4bumpo is suffering from "I didn't hear that" in that he is ignoring explainations by several contributors about why this group satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines. It is not because it is a federally recognized tribe; no one is arguing with you that it is federally recognized.  If the article claims that it is when in fact it isn't, remove the claim.  If you can provide a reliable source to show that the group is not a recognized tribe, insert that information in a neutral manner. If you believe there is a conflict of interest with the primary author, do what you can to make the article neutral, or point out concerns. None of you complaints address the notability issue, and none of them are helpful to this AFD. Keep this article based on the notability demonstrated in sources above and because there is no policy-based reason to delete the article. All of Natty4bumpo's issues with the article can be solved by editing, deletion is not necessary. (And no, just so you know, I am not associated with any Native American group or "wannabe" Native American group, nor do I have any particular interest in them personally)  The   Seeker 4   Talk  17:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * He also seems to be coming dangerously close to personal attacks. He's come short of actual accusations of belonging to this group. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 18:18, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - given circumstances, I suggest that Chuck check out WP:CABAL. -- Dennis The Tiger  (Rawr and stuff) 18:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * For a little more perspective, check this out: http://www.powwows.com/gathering/native-issues/42092-list-fraudulent-cherokee-chickamuagas.html . It's a list of 246 pseudo-Cherokee "tribes", demonstrating the level of specialness and notablility the NCNOTL truly possesses. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 22:33, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Furthermore, check out: http://tracingthetribe.blogspot.com/2006/12/judaism-in-appalachia.html; not the original blog post but the single reply. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 22:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Chuck, neither of those seems to change things. User:Theseeker4 (who comments above) is somebody you really should listen to, especially because it really does look like you're being disruptive in this process and doing the I didn't hear that thing. Trying to prove they should not be here when consensus and policy states they should is kind of like saying that Los Angeles, California does not exist.  Look, you've been here about as long as I have - you should already have an undertanding of this. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 13:40, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Dennis, no one has given a single reason why the NCNOTL is notable. Outside of its own claims, there is zero evidence for any of its claims.  Even the part about it being "state recognized" (which is about as valid as being given a "key to the city" or an "honorary doctorate") is a lie (Ashcroft vetoed the bill).  If Wikipedia allows such an article to remain merely because of "concensus", then it has no crediblity.  Five hundred years ago, there was a concensus that the Earth is flat, so "concensus" is not a valid tool of logic.  It is you, rather, who are not listening by refusing to check the links provided to put the NCNOTL in its proper context: that of being merely one of 204 (according to the current list of the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma) or one of 246 (according to powwow.com) fraudulent organizations.  NCNOTL is a spurious, fraudulent organization and does not deserve mention, except in a line of the forthcoming joint lawsuit of the CNO and EBCI.  The existence of the article only serves to support the repuatation of Wikipedia for being a joke. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 13:59, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - Cardiff Giant. AfD?  JohnInDC (talk) 14:05, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Why ask here? Has nothing to do with this.  Review WP:AFD and be bold! =) -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 14:33, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry; I was too obscure. I was making the point that "legitimacy" and notability don't correlate, and that even a perfect fraud like Cardiff Giant plainly warrants a Wikipedia article if it is notable.  JohnInDC (talk) 14:38, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It's clear from the discussions above that none of you have any idea how truly offensive and racist actual Indians/Native Americans find these groups. It's not enough to rip off their lands, slaughter their people, and herd the survivors onto tiny reservations, but then people with no credible shred of connection to actual Indians organize themselves into groups calling themselves Cherokee (others rip off the identities of other tribes, but the overhwelming majority of such groups usurp some version of "Cherokee") and stealing their very identity...and entities such as Wikipedia validate that with articles such as this. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 14:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There should be a general article on entities such as the Northern Cherokee Nation of the Old Louisiana Territory, the Tennessee River Band of Chickamauga Cherokee, all three calling themselves Georgia Band of Eastern Cherokee--either an rewriting and/or expansion of the existing Cherokee Heritage Groups article, or a new one entirely--but none of them deserves or merits its own individual article. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 14:41, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * sigh* Chuck, I am disinclined to think you're an idiot. You're clearly intelligent, in fact.  Unfortunately, that leaves only one option - you're ignoring consensus and just being disruptive.  My !vote stands.  I wash my hands of this otherwise, there is just no telling you. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 14:53, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Just because there is a concensus does not mean the concensus is correct. In this case, concensus is dead wrong. I'm not going to say the world is flat nor support the continued existence of an article that has no factual basis simply because I'm in a minority. This article is not factual, its subject is not notable, and it should not exist on Wikipedia. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 20:22, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I also take issue with Dennis' repeated assertions that I am arguing just to be disruptive. In fact, I hate having to argue. True, I have had several bad experiences in the past with such groups as the one with which the article deals, and yes, such groups attempting to usurp Cherokee (or other Indian) identity for themselves, and who use forums such as Wikipedia to do so, are one of my few pet peeves. But the reason I have not ceased arguing is that the continued presence of such article about such dubious entities on Wikipedia weighs against the credibility of Wikipedia as a reliable source of information. If I didn't care, I wouldn't bother since I have better things to do with my time, such as valid research from reliable sources. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 21:16, 22 May 2009 (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.