Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Four Guns

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Tone (talk | contribs) at 17:42, 7 October 2020 (→‎Four Guns: Closed as keep (XFDcloser)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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. Tone 17:42, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Four Guns

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Four Guns (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. Unable to locate any biographical details in secondary sources. He seems to be notable only for having made this quote, which is all that is mentioned about him in various sources. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:43, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:43, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:44, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no sense of notability at all. Inexpiable (talk) 19:16, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As a chief, who visited Washington as a representative of his people, the subject passes WP:POLITICIAN. Insofar as we've haven't yet found a lot of writing, this is explained by his own words – "the Indian needs no writing". We should not judge such people by the standards of others – "if the white man loses his paper, he is helpless". (Old Stories, New Ways). Andrew🐉(talk) 08:28, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Andrew Davidson.  oncamera  (talk page) 08:52, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrew Davidson and Oncamera: The two criteria for presumed notability at WP:POLITICIAN are:
  • Politicians and judges who have held international, national, or (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office, or have been members of legislative bodies at those levels. This also applies to people who have been elected to such offices but have not yet assumed them.
  • Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage.
Which of these two criteria are met? Magnolia677 (talk) 10:16, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
He was a chief of the Oglala. That's a political office of a nation as explained by Andrew Davidson in the first sentence of his vote. Try reading.  oncamera  (talk page) 10:29, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:POLITICIAN also states that "Just being an elected local official...does not guarantee notability". The Oglala article states that the population of the tribe was about 5,537 people, about the same size as a small city. Are you suggesting being the chief or a small tribe guarantees notability, despite no biographical details in reliable sources? Magnolia677 (talk) 12:01, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
He was a tribal judge not chief, the article was originally misquoting the source, more sources have been added. -- GreenC 13:14, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Magnolia677: It's pretty shitty of you to penalize the "small" population of Oglala as irrelevant considering the acts of genocide that they had to survive in order to grow their population to over 40,000 today. Being a judge of their early reservation tribal government is still important. Native American tribes are sovereign nations and should be treated properly on Wikipedia as such.  oncamera  (talk page) 20:48, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, I disagree. A group of 4,000 people or a group of 40,000 people can call themselves whatever they want, but nobody would consider such a relatively small group of people a nation or a country or even a city. The size of the polity matters for purposes of NPOL. Lev!vich 21:21, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter if you disagree. The United States government treats the tribes as sovereign nations per the Bureau of Indian Affairs FAQ, including the treaties made at the time of this man's life. It sounds as if you want the policies of Wikipedia to exclude Native tribes based on their sizes after European diseases and wars decimated their populations. Very biased.  oncamera  (talk page) 23:07, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Stop attacking editors you disagree with. NPOL isn't based on US gov't designations. It's perfectly legitimate to say that a person who was a judge for a group of 4-40 thousand doesn't qualify as holding national/regional office under NPOL, and that has nothing to do with bias. Lev!vich 23:17, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Levivich: I love how you personally attack every single person who may have been or is a descendant of this NATION of American Indians and then turn around and use that logic on another editor when you are challenged and your feelings are hurt. I find your personal description of this proud and important NATION of American Indians offensive and biased and, tbh, borderline racist. San Marino is a country and a nation of 33,000 citizens. They are considered one of the smallest sovereign states in the world. Have you argued with Wikipedia that San Marino isn't a country by your standards applied here? That their leaders/spokesmen/representatives don't deserve to be called national politicians?Tsistunagiska (talk) 18:11, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have not attacked anyone. Lev!vich 18:15, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Levivich: You disenfranchised almost anyone who comes from a NATION (American Indian or not) with less than 40,000 people in the population by saying they are irrelevant. You perpetuated your personal views as policy of Wikipedia when there is no population maximum or minimum listed in said policy and then used that as your argument to relegate a prominent person from their history into obscurity within this encyclopedia of WORLD importance, not just what is important to the user Levivich. And then you are going to say you didn't attack anyone?Tsistunagiska (talk) 18:25, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've disenfranchised no one. Your choice of language is ridiculous. Lev!vich 18:26, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are many small sovereign states which are internationally recognised – see microstate. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:56, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Widely quoted, known for his elegantly stated views on Indian culture and critical of the tyranny of the written word. He said in jest: "I once heard one of their preachers say that no white man was admitted to heaven, unless there were writings about him a great book." -- GreenC 13:14, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as per WP:HEY improvements to the article made by GreenC - the article now has seven book references which unequivocally establishes notability. Netherzone (talk) 14:14, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - apparently he was not a chief, but a judge. All the references are just quote books that include quotes by him. And consequently, our article is just a collection of his quotes. Being quoted doesn't make a person notable. There don't appear to be any secondary sources that actually talk about the subject of this article. When was he born? Where was he born? When did he die? All we seem to have are a few quotes, and that's not enough for an encyclopedia article. Lev!vich 20:21, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:HEY not the same article which was nominated. GreenC has polished this article so future generations of readers can learn. Lightburst (talk) 23:17, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The subject specific guidelines for politicians is clear. He was the judge of his tribe, quite a notable position. Dream Focus 00:00, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:13, 2 October 2020 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Four_Guns&oldid=982362621"