Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Native American identity in the United States

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The result was Nomination Withdrawn by nominator.--Isotope23 20:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Native American identity in the United States

Original Research which includes dubious sources (non-Indians claiming to be indians). Who is or is not Indian is defined by Federal Law, not Wikipedia. While the topic may have public interest there are no such controversies involving the named tribes in the article. Neither the Cherokee Nation nor the Dine (Navajo) Nation is currently involved in any controversies involving Federal recognition. Appears to be a POV fork of the Cherokee Freedmen Controversy. Article is a clever attempt to make Wikipedia a debate forum for Federal recognition and to attempt to mix ccontent about non-Federally recognized groups and Federally recognized groups in an attempt to legitimize these dubious groups claiming to be Indians. Article fails WP:V because the claimed sources cannot be verified. Many of the claimed sources do not state the positions claimed. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 03:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn - The article has undergone an amazing transformation since I nominated it for AFD. Originally this article was clearly POV pushing of dubious views but has since been scrubbed and significantly enhanced. Given that the article is now worthy of encyclopedic inclusion, and has numerous other editors and eyes reviewing it, and the quality of the article has improved substancially, I withdraw the AFD. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 17:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~:Delete - Original research. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 04:03, 6 July 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]

Keep This article is not just (or even primarily) about the U.S. legal definition of a native american individual as defined by the federal government. It is about the much larger, complex topic of cultural and self-identification as a native american and its implications. Though the article may need major sourcing and cleanup, this does not negate that this is the kind of complex, often heated topic that Wikipedia's neutral collaborative process was made for. VanTucky ^(talk) 05:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I'm somewhat inclined to agree with VanTucky, although I think this article needs to be cleaned up and edited down a bit. It could also use the attention of additional editors, it appears the majority of the article was written by a single person. Naufana : talk 05:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Comprehensive and well sourced. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 05:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above--Sefringle^Talk 06:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above. Needs some more verified sources. Legal definitions of what constitutes a "Native American" are important, since they control funding, and this article looks at that as well as traditional views within individual tribes. Israel has historically debated over a legal definition of Jewish, so it's not new. I'd vote to change the title to "Definition of Native American identity in the United States"-- the current title is misleading, seems too much like Raisin in the Sun --— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mandsford (talk • contribs)
Keep as per everybody else. Article appears to be a well presented source of information on various issues surrounding "who is an indian?" in not just the legal, but also the social and personal definitions. --Maelwys 12:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball keep, research does not equal original research. --Qyd 16:15, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: extremely well sourced, well written, might need a tad cleanup, but nothing I see is original research. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 18:50, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - some sections could probably stand to be edited for succinctivity (is that a word?), but overall well-researched and certainly well sourced. AKRadecki^Speaketh 19:13, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Jeff, we've been here before - as we commented at the Cherokee issue, there's a difference between who's "legally" and who's "culturally" Indian. However, (and Mansford makes an excellent point at this) I agree that refining the legal definitions could be in order; but that's all it takes for this article to address both legal and cultural identity as separate, yet related matters. Nothing dangerous nor inaccurate in that. Phaedriel - 19:45, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment - While I agree with most of what you state here, we have here an article with two Indian Nations claimed to be embroiled in identity and Federal Recognition Controversies which in fact are not. The Cherokee and Dine have already been Federally recognized. It comes down to what is the encyclopedic term for "Indian" and who does it define. Remembering as well how often this title seems to get abused in modern times. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 04:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It happens, and there are good sources for the phenomena of self-identifying as Indian. Amerique^dialectics 22:22, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 22:59, 8 July 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.