Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Non Treaty Chippewa Indians

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 delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:36, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Non Treaty Chippewa Indians

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page has no citations and is highly POV. The author has removed the tags indicating this (twice). Rather than getting in an edit war, I believe we should delete this page. If the topic warrants a separate page, we can start anew. (I frankly have no idea whether this page is entirely factually accurate or if it was made up out of thin air.) JoelWhy (talk) 20:25, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it stands. It's so non-NPOV that I can almost hear the grinding of an axe. No references, which suggests original research WP:OR. An author who doesn't seem to want anything to get in the way of his message, which is not helping his/her case any. That's not a reason for deletion - it's an expression of despair at once again having to deal with someone new who doesn't want to be helped. Peridon (talk) 20:59, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Also, "non-treaty" appears to be a Canadian term.[1] I don't get any ghits for Americans. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:22, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep as insidiously POV as it is now i dont see why it could not be cleaned and bettered. Remember: improvement is not a reason for deletion. Perhaps collate something into an article Unrecognized Native American tribes in the United States, or something similar.Lihaas (talk) 23:34, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with storm and fire: This isn't a factual article, it's a turgid, unsourced polemic that blows holes in WP:SOAPBOX, created by a now-indef blocked fellow. The only link is to (I kid you not) "Beaded Lizard Web Designs," a webhost with, I fancy, few credentials as a reliable source. As far as the information presented goes, the only tribe listed linked to its own article did, according to that article, sign more than one treaty with the United States. But, hey, if Lihaas or any other Keep proponent believes this is a sourceable article, the AfD has seven days to run. Ravenswing 02:14, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Ravenswing, polemic, synthesized, nothing resembling a good source. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:23, 21 April 2012(UTC)
Delete. All US Ojibwe bands are covered either by treaty or agreement and all have been adjudicated by the Indian Claims Commission, so there are no such thing as a "non-treaty" Ojibwe in the US. Also, this article is non-NPOV and contradicts in many aspects to the ICC testimonies. The article makes many references to unrecognized tribes that are Ojibwe bands, but this not the same as being non-treaty. Unlike the non-status Indians in Canada where the people are recognized as Indian peoples but not on the Indian Register, unrecognized tribes in the US have a higher legal bar where they must demonstrate continued government activities but without the government-to-government relationship with the US, else be deemed as a civil heritage group. CJLippert (talk) 04:53, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What's the relationship between this article and Non Federally Recognized Chippewa Indians? Without spending too much time on it, it looks to me like the article being AFD'd was an attempt to try to re-create the latter under a new name. Maybe they should be combined into one AFD? Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 07:41, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! Looks like its been answered then.Lihaas (talk) 08:58, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And that answer would be…? Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 13:39, 21 April 2012 (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.