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. A Train^talk 07:47, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Sneed[edit]

Richard Sneed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Sources do not prove notability. Most are at best passing mentions or affiliated. Fails WP:ANYBIO Domdeparis (talk) 16:37, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- fails WP:BIO and relevant WP:CS --EC Racing (talk) 20:06, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:56, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:33, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. The principal chief of a substantial Native American nation arguably passes WP:POLITICIAN as the head of a "national or sub-national" office. At least, we have treated many other chiefs as such; see, e.g., Category:Native American politicians. The Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians is, of course, much smaller than the Oklahoma-based Cherokee Nation but its politics do receive coverage in reliable sources, and we already have some sources presented in this article. I lean toward letting this article stand; if it does not, the content here (and in other articles about Eastern Band Cherokee chiefs) should be repurposed to improving the history section of the main article about the tribe. --Arxiloxos (talk) 21:57, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I followed that link to the article on Cherokee Nation. The intro paragraph calls Larry Echo Hawk the head of the BIA. Echo Hawk has not been the head of the BIA since the spring of 2012, when he resigned to become a general authority of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The quote in the lead from Echo Hawk seems to give undue weight, and I think should be later.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:30, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't really think we can talk about national or sub-national politicians and even if we were NPOLITICIAN is just a guide against speedy and prodding. All bios must meet GNG and I don't believe this one does. We are not talking about the tribe itself but its leader. The sources are not in-depth secondary coverage in my opinion. Domdeparis (talk) 09:15, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep We have mention in very broad coverage sources. I actually created an article on one of the Navajo code talkers who was on the Navajo Tribal Council, and I believe it has survived. I looked, and the article is still there. I have to admit I only ever created the article because when I took Native American history to 1900 at Brigham Young University Brown came in and spoke to our class one day. His granddaughter was one of my classmates. However the material in the article is based on reliable sources, that is why I do not mention that his son-in-law was president of the Chinle Arizona Stake, the only LDS Stake entirely on the Navajo Reservation. Because Although I can find a source to show that his son-in-law was president of that stake, and even who that man's wife was, I cannot find any sources directly linking them, especially ones where it would not be bordering on synthesis. Back to this article, I think it is a pretty clear keep.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:26, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnpacklambert: I'm sorry but I think you are confusing him with someone else this guy looks like he is in his forties tops. Have a look at the sources again I may be wrong. sorry I misread your comment. I still do not believe the sources are sufficient to pass GNG Domdeparis (talk) 22:47, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - as an elected politician. Sort of an unusual scenario, but head of the Cherokee nation seems a sufficient post for inclusion at WP. Carrite (talk) 20:23, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He is not head of the Cherokee Nation but another much smaller tribe (16,000 instead of 300,000). The info box is incorrect please follow the links and read the article. Not all elected politicians are notable as per WP: NPOLITICIAN. I believe he fails GNG. Domdeparis (talk) 22:47, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I come down strongly on the side that the head of a Native American tribe (is that still the correct term?) should be considered to pass WP:NPOLITICIAN #1, perhaps not in the strict wording but certainly in the intent. (The size of the tribe is irrelevant in this regard.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:13, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry I don't get why just because it's a native American tribe he gets a pass on GNG. NPOLITICIAN is just a broad guideline to avoid speedy and prodding. All articles have to meet GNG. Unless there is a new policy that promotes positive discrimination on Wikipedia for native Americans I really don't understand. Wikipedia is supposed to be egalitarian for all nations. I think you should be arguing on the basis of policy and not your interpretation of intent. The only topic specific criteria that I know of that are superior to GNG is NPROF. Domdeparis (talk) 07:29, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I've reverted my nac by request, but this seems like a clear (and apart from the nom, non-controversial) keep. WP:NPOL seems to be met and doesn't require GNG. I've added an additional source to make this even more clear. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:16, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not wanting to bludgeon the point but I totally disagree with you because WP:NPEOPLE clearly states just under the WP:BASIC criteria that also says "See also: Wikipedia:General notability guideline" at the top of the additional criteria section "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." Domdeparis (talk) 18:42, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the source you added and as it is the EBCI news site it cannot be considered as independent I believe. Domdeparis (talk) 18:46, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, while WP:NPOL and other specific notability guidelines can't override the need for WP:V, in practice they do allow for articles that are largely sourced to local sources and/or sources tied to the government organizations. If you pick a random article linked from Virginia House of Delegates elections, 2017, there's a good chance it will have exactly that formula. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:26, 8 November 2017 (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.