Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prince of Chota (2nd nomination)


 * 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 Chota (Cherokee town).  MBisanz  talk 05:04, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Prince of Chota
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

I proposed deletion of this article, which was originally filled with the same pseudohistorical nonsense as the revision I just undid ten minutes ago, the same kind that led to the deletion of the "House of Moytoy" and its related articles. After it's revision to what I have just restored, I withdrew my request but now see that as long as there is an article by the name "Prince of Chota" on Wikipedia, someone will always attempt to return that nonsense to it. I am therefore re-proposing its deletion. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 05:37, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * keep edit disputes are not a reason for deletion. Artw (talk) 09:08, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as POV, a hoax, and a coatrack that serves no purpose except to let people reintroduce "House of Moytoy" pseudohistory. Nothing verifiable can be discussed in this article, except that this phrase appears in certain British-American colonial documents. It's an invention of the British that corresponds to who-knows-what title or titles in the actual Cherokee polity; the sources I've found do not say. WillOakland (talk) 10:42, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete . True, editorial disputes are not a reason to delete an article, but this article should not exist at all.  It contains two sentences that could be fitted--or not--into the "Cherokee" article.  The only reason it was written in the first place was to support the royal "House of Moytoy" fiction and its attendant idiocies. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 14:02, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Striking !vote. As nominator, the nomination is already considered an endorsement of deletion. -- Whpq (talk) 17:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

To whomever it may concern: I've restored the "edit" I'd previously undone so that editors can see why this article should be deleted. Among other things, there are no sources for it as it was editted before I fixed it. As it was before, it was an accurate but two sentence stub that could've been fit into the larger "Cherokee" article in one sentence. Given that, there is no reason for it to continue to exist as its presence on Wikipedia is an invitation to those who would like to pose pretentious fantasy as fact. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 14:34, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That's really not a good idea. I've reverted it - please don't damage articles to make a WP:POINT or bolster chances of deletion. Artw (talk) 23:24, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, there's no need. People can dig into the history if necessary. WillOakland (talk) 23:44, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd agree, except that Artw has already expressed his wish that the article stay. So, I'll eliminate the need to check the history:



Almost all that information is spurious, yet someone who's a proponent of the idea of a "House of Moytoy", "Cherokee royalty", and even a nonexistent connection to the Anglo-Irish baronial house of Carpenter, comes along and sticks that trash in every couple of weeks. Frankly, I'm tired of restoring it. It's not an editorial dispute, it's one of fact vs. fiction. And the article shouldn't even exist to be vandalized. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 23:56, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I took the very unusual step of editing your comment. Copying the text here violates the copyright license and is essentially self-defeating, since it ensure that it will remain somewhere on Wikipedia indefinitely. A link to the revision is enough. WillOakland (talk) 01:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd've done that if I'd thought of it. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 05:20, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

If it's misinformation, why have it on Wikipedia at all? Chuck Hamilton (talk) 22:17, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge verifiable material to Cherokee. The concept exists however misused it it is.  The Cherokee article would be the appropriate place for the information. -- Whpq (talk) 14:41, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete . Yes, the concept exists, but it is fiction, and I am not aware of how promoting fiction as fact will help Wikipedia.  As long as there is a reference to "Prince of Chota", it's going to serve as an invitation for people in the fantasy world.  It was merely the erroneous way the British and early Americans (as late as the early 19th century, the USG referred to Black Fox as the "King" of the Cherokee), and the appelation does deserves no mention as it was never of any importance until some person found a mention of it and decided it meant that the Cherokee had a royal family, which they didn't. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 16:45, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Striking !vote. Please, only one per customer.  Now as to it being fiction, I am not arguing that the Cherokee did have royalty and titles as we know it.  However, this misinterpretation is real, and is being used in a variety of texts (for example this).  There is sufficient material to justify identifying this misinterpretation of the Cherokee nation within the Cherokee article. -- Whpq (talk) 17:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that source explains rather clearly why no useful article article can be written. WillOakland (talk) 23:54, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge to Chota (Cherokee town). (And semi-protect the redirect if necessary.) We're not required to extensively document outdated misinformation and puffery beyond a sentence saying "Many sources say X but this has been shown to be invented." 138.123.66.54 (talk) 21:35, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply - Historically incorrect interpretations that live on should be explained. I am not advocating propogating misinformation but rther explaining the misconception.  After all, despite being misinformation, we still have material about a flat earth, around which everything else revolves.  -- Whpq (talk) 02:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Fine. Put it in the article on "British colonization of the Americas", because it really has nothing to do with the Cherokee.  Otherwise, do away with it. There's no merit or purpose to it, and the "House of Moytoy" article was deleted for those reasons.  Chuck Hamilton (talk) 04:39, 5 March 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.