Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spuzzum First Nation


 * 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. (non-admin closure)  Onel 5969  TT me 12:53, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Spuzzum First Nation

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Incomplete article. Part about the tribe is unsourced. Under normal circumstances it would be considered failing WP:GNG The Banner talk 23:00, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions.  Human 3015   TALK    23:38, 13 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose: Another word for "incomplete article" is "stub" which is indicated at the bottom of the article. I admit it is pretty thin and under-sourced, although I have just added some information and sources. Spuzzum is the topic of at least one book (now referenced in the article) and is covered in several other scholarly works. I see no reason to delete it. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:20, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:43, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:44, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:44, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:44, 15 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia does not delete articles just for being "incomplete" — and while this definitely needs some referencing improvement, First Nations band governments are a notable thing for which we should always have an article about every one that exists, with no exceptions for any reason ever. Keep and flag for improvement. Bearcat (talk) 16:19, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * According to what rule is that? The Banner talk 21:27, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Take your pick of WP:GEOLAND, our notability standards for government bodies and our notability standards for ethnic groupings (a First Nation, by definition, cuts across all three of those concepts.) Bearcat (talk) 20:48, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Your arguments sounds more like "It is USA so it is notable".
 * Well, no, a) because First Nations are in Canada and not the USA and b) because WP:GEOLAND really is a thing. I can't tell you how many countless settlements we've included -- hamlets, villages, dots on the map -- with the tiniest of stubs, because of this very guideline. In fact if memory serves, I believe one of our most prolific editors, Dr. Blofeld, even created a Bot just to spawn them (?). At any rate, by contrast, as you can see in List of First Nations governments, there is a large though finite number of First Nations in Canada. So Keep. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:54, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep --The fact that an article is missing some sections, might possibly be a reason to delete some section headings (though better not: it may encourage someone to write them). It is certainly not a reason to delete the whole article.  If it was not capable of being verified, it would be different.  Peterkingiron (talk) 18:49, 18 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Bearcats arguments do not convince me at all. But the edits of Themightyquill make me doubt about the nomination. Request speedy close as keep (and I hope the article gets more info) The Banner talk</i> 20:55, 18 October 2015 (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.