Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yowani Choctaws


 * 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 to delete, default to keep. It would perhaps be appropriate to re-nominate this if the OR issues have not been addressed in due time.  Sandstein  20:03, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Yowani Choctaws

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

Someone uploaded their essay. StaticGull Talk  13:50, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "The Yowani Choctaws and their Cherokee cousins still have a bright future, if they are willing to grab it and run." - not good enough. Punkmorten (talk) 15:19, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Sorry, Wikipedia is not your LiveJournal or a repository for your personal essays. Doc StrangeMailbox Logbook 16:03, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:40, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:41, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:44, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - Wouldn't it simply be better, if this is a real Native American group, to ask the author to rewrite the article from scratch? Badagnani (talk) 21:44, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. This article went to AfD 10 minutes after creation. Tone/POV/OR are cleanup issues. This tribe checks out as real with substantial coverage. The article includes references. The basic history is independently verifiable through Google Books. Unless this is copyvio (which I am checking), there is at least something to salvage. AfD is not cleanup. • Gene93k (talk) 21:54, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - Let's do that, then. Badagnani (talk) 22:26, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep As notable, and deal with the cleanup somewhere else, such as the article talk page . Perhaps we should have a formal rule against nominating article here except copyvio and BLP until 24 hours after their creation.  DGG (talk) 22:42, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep It needs tagging for wikifying, and other issues. It also needs the (redlink) categories replaced by legitimate ones.  Nevertheless, provided it is not duplicating an existing article that it ought to be merged with (or vice versa), I see no reason why this should not be treated as a legitimate WP article, even if it did start life as a student essay.  I would agree with the comment about over-rapid AFD nomination, which is liable to put off inexperienced editors from improving their own articles, but this is not the place for such discussion.  Mind you: I know nothing of the subject, but assume it meets WP:V since it cites so many sources.  Peterkingiron (talk) 22:03, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Very Weak Delete this is a very odd case. It certainly represents jumping the gun on the nomination.  I disagree with some of the above comments that WP:OR is a solely editorial manner.  In the case that the article itself represents a situation where wikipedia is a publisher of first instance, it may be a matter for deletion as well.  As I read the sources I come across some familiar terms in genealogical and tribal research: "unpublished manuscript", "letters", "personal communications".  These primary sources (especially the inaccessible ones) should send alarm bells ringing for editors viewing the content.  We allow sourcing like this in published material because the reputation of the author is staked upon the accuracy and foundation of her claims.  Wikipedia doesn't allow for such an exception so we should be very leery of building articles from those sorts of sources.  To be sure, it is likely to be a verifiable fact that the Yowani Choctaws exist and live in Mount Tabor.  Other verifiable facts are sure to exist in the article.  But we have little chance of fully disentangling those facts from what may be new claims published on wikipedia.  This is an unfortunate result in local (and especially tribal) history.  Look carefully at the article sourcing and at the claims made in the articles before coming to your own decision, but it seems to me that this article consists largely of material where wikipedia is the first publisher, as such we should delete it per WP:OR. Protonk (talk) 22:56, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep So a historical entry about a group that has documented existence and continues to exist should be deleted? Didn't think Wikipedia was about whitewashing history. The fact that so many changes have been made to make the original unrecognizable, does not take away from the importance of having a record of the Yowani people. As to the Yowani being a part of Mount Tabor I refer you to the State of Texas recognition this year which mentions the Yowani https://legiscan.com/TX/text/SCR25/id/1603789/Texas-2017-SCR25-Enrolled.html. To remove sources that are considered incomplete is certainly understandable, but to delete is not.Terran57 (talk) 17:23, 18 June 2017 (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.