- 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. Its a federal reservation and not a BLP. Consensus appears clear, hence the need for early closure. Wikic¤l¤gy t@lk to M£ 07:20, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Jackson Rancheria
- Jackson Rancheria ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article with extensive BLP content, based only on entirely unreliable source for BLP. I think the intent is promotional. See adjoining AfD. DGG ( talk ) 19:58, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
- STRONG KEEP - This is absurd. Why would you want to delete an article about a federal reservation? Are you aware you don't have to propose deletion for every article that strikes you as promotional? [1] —Мандичка YO 😜 20:08, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
- Strong keep, it's a federally-recognized Native American tribal reservation, not a BLP. If there are BLP issues in the article, then fix it. No grounds for deletion. Skyerise ( talk) 20:30, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
- Comment - the two subsections were however clearly copyright violations, copy/pasted from the source. I've removed them.
Skyerise (
talk) 20:33, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
-
Skyerise thanks, but I noticed that text has been on the Wikipedia article since 2008, while the official website looks like it was setup around 2012. I'm pretty sure it originally came from WP. Not that it needed to be kept, but FYI.
—Мандичка
YO 😜 20:40, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
- How can you tell it was set up around 2012? And how could you know whether or not there were a previous page located on another website which may have been the previous source. Frequently pages like that are initially on a tribal or community website prior to the purchasing of a domain name, and then get moved. Wikipedia and that site might both copy an older source.
Skyerise (
talk) 20:44, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
- Skyerise: Just from poking around the Internet Archive. This was their old website from 2004, and that text is still on there in 2008 version. Same angle as in WP article, but different text. —Мандичка YO 😜 20:54, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
- How can you tell it was set up around 2012? And how could you know whether or not there were a previous page located on another website which may have been the previous source. Frequently pages like that are initially on a tribal or community website prior to the purchasing of a domain name, and then get moved. Wikipedia and that site might both copy an older source.
Skyerise (
talk) 20:44, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
-
Skyerise thanks, but I noticed that text has been on the Wikipedia article since 2008, while the official website looks like it was setup around 2012. I'm pretty sure it originally came from WP. Not that it needed to be kept, but FYI.
—Мандичка
YO 😜 20:40, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 21:29, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 21:29, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
- Keep BLP violations and promotional tone are fixable (and already fixed) and not an argument for deletion. Federally recognized tribes are sovereign nations, and therefore inherently notable. Toohool ( talk) 23:20, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
- Strong keep It's a nation-state within the United States, for heaven's sake. How can there be BLP for a Federal Reservation? Ogress smash! 09:03, 13 June 2015 (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.