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) — Caknuck 00:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cherokee heritage groups (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Spin-off article (POV Fork?) from debate at Talk:Cherokee, but no evidence that such thing exists. 0 ghits. Non-notable organizations of this type seem to have websites, such as this Cherokee heritage msn group. Smmurphy^(Talk) 15:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a second nomination, previous nomination: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cherokee Heritage Groups.

At the articles talk page, we can read that the article was formed based on the following statement:

"There are more than 200 groups that we’ve been able to recognize that call themselves a Cherokee nation, tribe, or band," said Mike Miller, spokesman for the Cherokee Nation (the one based here in Tahlequah, at the W.W. Keeler Tribal Complex).

"Only three are federally recognized, but the other groups run the gamut of intent. Some are basically heritage groups – people who have family with Cherokee heritage who are interested in the language and culture, and we certainly encourage that," said Miller. "But the problem is when you have groups that call themselves ‘nation,’ or ‘band,’ or ‘tribe,’ because that implies governance."

Smmurphy^(Talk) 15:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or de-POV. This sure looks like a POV fork, and as such I lean towards deletion. On the other hand, the subject of persons/groups who identify as Cherokee but are not recognized as such by the Cherokee Nation or the U.S. government seems like a valid encyclopedic topic, so if it's possible to make this an NPOV article, spun out from Cherokee in compliance with summary style (and perhaps with a different title like Cherokee identity), then I could be persuaded that it should be kept. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cherokee identity was deleted as a POV Fork of this a couple days ago: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cherokee identity. Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that would preclude the creation of a new Cherokee identity that wasn't a POV fork. It looks like the ongoing mediation at Talk:Cherokee is probably the best place to determine whether there should be a sub-article on this topic, and what the contents and titles of those articles should be. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a ways into the process of creating just such a page, and agree that there's no conflict between the pages, or need for POV forking. The old article could hardly even be assailed as original research; it was so devoid of sourcing or verifiability that you'd never be able to tell what was original. But it need not be that way. Poindexter Propellerhead 21:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Article is Original Research claiming non-Indians are indians. Nominator refuses to comply with the terms of a previously decided arbitration. This article was created to attempt to provide a place for these types of materials to exist. Since the nominator has stated they will continue to oppose adherence with Wikipedia Policies and Federal Laws in this area, and continues to place unverifiable original research into our project claiming non-Indians are Indians, deletion and removal of all such materials seems the best course. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 18:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 23:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment - You are accusing the person who nominated the article of acting in bad faith despite your own support of the nomination, which is rather baffling. Are you aiming your WP:ABF at the intended target? But if you do think he or she is disregarding an arbitration decision that governs this discussion, can you provide a link to that arbitration case so we can all get a better idea of how we might be constrained in our possible courses of action? Article seems to be relatively well-sourced, so any original research problems are not endemic. It also seems to be pretty careful about not making its own claims that "non-Indians are Indians", but rather describing the claims that the groups themselves are making, along with describing any opposition to those claims. You seem to be objecting to a different article than the one under discussion, if one takes your comments at face value; or perhaps you are simply using hyperbole as a rhetorical device. alanyst ^/talk/ 19:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the above argument is an attempt to show that a particular ethnic identity does not have any foundation in fact. But it there are people who claim such identity, and there are sources for people making such claims,, then the subject is notable. The question of the validity of the claims is an editing question. The very quotation used in the nom. shows the notability. "There are more than 200 groups that we’ve been able to recognize that call themselves a Cherokee nation, tribe, or band," said Mike Miller, spokesman for the Cherokee Nation" Miller apparently doesn't think all of them--or perhaps any of them -- genuine, but that doesn't affect the importance of the subject.DGG 04:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The above comment demonstrates complete and total ignorance of Native American History and the laws associated with Indians. Cherokee Identity is a political and not racial distinction and always has been. Even even someone claims Cherokee ancestry, they must be able to prove it. If they are not members of a tribe, then there are no rolls from which to trace ancestry. People who have watched too many Hollywood movies have this mistaken perception. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 18:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - While this may be true, it is an argument for a different article. Cherokee heritage groups themselves aren't notable. People of Cherokee heritage who are not a part of federally recognized tribes may be encyclopedic, as Akhilleus suggests, but they do not take part in groups of this sort in notable numbers. Smmurphy^(Talk) 05:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per reasons of DGG above. -SESmith 05:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The Cherokee Nation spokesman uses the term "heritage groups", so the article title seems pretty NPOV to me. Plus, it's a pretty effective way of describing groups who identify themselves with a Cherokee heritage without implying that they have gained federal recognition. Although individual groups might not be notable themselves, it is surely a notable fact that there are so many groups that align themselves with Cherokee heritage despite lacking federal recognition. I think it's very useful for Wikipedia to describe these groups in the aggregate, the nature of their claims to Cherokee heritage, and the legal, political, financial, and cultural ramifications of such claims. The article is not a true POV fork because it treats a more specific subject (the various groups and their claims on Cherokee heritage) rather than simply representing a different view of the same subject (Cherokee). Cherokee heritage groups, for instance, does not discuss general Cherokee history, the language, or famous Cherokees. The only significant overlap is on the question of recognition, but that's what I'd expect from what's essentially a spinoff from the main Cherokee article, as that's the natural point for it to spin off. alanyst ^/talk/ 19:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This is the most accurate appraisal I have seen so far. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 23:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggested deletion based on the premise that these groups are not notable, even in aggregate (where are the reliable sources talking about them, or is Miller the only one?). I have suggested the creation of an article along the lines of DGG's comment or moving this article to a broader title, and I respect that this suggestion has not been widely accepted for legal reasons. Most of the content of this article comes from a subsection of Cherokee that was written with that article (about all people claiming to be Cherokee who aren't recognized) in mind, thus the sources are talking about something different than the article title.

The POV part comes in because of this limited scope. The reason the limited scope is accepted, and not the larger one, is that there is a Cherokee Nation spokesman who has talked about "heritage groups." However, this is the only source that talks about the limited scope, all of the other sources talk about the larger population of Cherokee who are not recognized. Best, Smmurphy^(Talk) 23:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per DGG and alanyst.--JayJasper 14:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the above. Poindexter Propellerhead 21:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:21, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.