Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Southern cherokee nation of kentucky


 * 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   no consensus. The article has been wholly rewritten after 28 December 2010 and is no longer a poorly written essay, so most of the discussion no longer applies to it. If there are still reasons for its deletion, a new AfD discussion would need to be started.  Sandstein  10:07, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Southern cherokee nation of kentucky

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Poorly written essay. I don't think there's anything to salvage here. Feezo (Talk) 05:08, 21 December 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:58, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * See also . Uncle G (talk) 06:19, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Delete, personal essay. It's even written in the first person. J I P  &#124; Talk 06:06, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks like good historical stuff. Refer to WP:Alternative outlets .  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:41, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Allow User:markdask to forge something out of it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:40, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, too far gone to be saved. Nyttend (talk) 14:18, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Unreferenced and poorly written research essay. Not opposed to incubating/userfying this to improve it, but falls significantly short of the Article bar. Hasteur (talk) 16:16, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. The NAFPS Forum seems to suggest that the Southern Cherokee Nation of Kentucky are not a Federally recognised group, and that they were only a splinter group back in the 1860s. I have added some refs for anyone curious about the group itself. The article as it exists is not representative, much less rewriteable.  I would say the group, as a subgroup, are noteworthy though, and will undertake a total rewrite if it is kept.  Mark  Dask 01:27, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * After further research, there are an immense number of sources to demonstrate the historical significance of the Southern Cherokee Nation of Kentucky. This article deserves to be treated as a Biography of Living People. I will rewrite it in the next few days.  Mark  Dask 04:18, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete/Userfy: I agree that this fails WP:ESSAY, but have no objection to Markdask userfying it and seeing if something can be made of it.  Ravenswing  14:57, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you Traynor - your condescension is appreciated. The importance of this article can be seen in new world encyclopedia.org where the subject is comprehensively addressed. Mark  Dask 16:20, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I've bitten off more than I can chew. Given there are several Court Cases pending between the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma and the US Federal Government, regarding the issue of Cherokee citizenship, where the very existance of the Southern Cherokee Nation of Kentucky is questioned as a tribe, even described as fraudulent by the official Cherokee Nation, I think the subject is too fluid as to be encyclopedic. The original article, created by no less than Principal Chief Michael "Manfox" Buley himself - is too subjective to be encyclopedic in any case. Although I still believe the subject is historically significant, the status of the Southern Cherokee Nation of Kentucky is beyond my capability as an editor. If the deletion tag is removed, however, I will consider it a vote of confidence on what I have already done and make it a pet project. Mark Dask 17:24, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:HEY as several good sources have been added. Copyediting is not a reason for deletion. Bearian (talk) 15:23, 5 January 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.