Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chaubunagungamaug Reservation

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Shimeru (talk) 23:23, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chaubunagungamaug Reservation[edit]

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

It seems there does no such reservation exist. A search in the Geographic Names Information System did not return any results, even when searching Chaubunagungamaug only. The first weblink does not consist of a reliable source, the second returns that the page does not exist. Therefor it might or might not be original research or whatsoever, however the article should be deleted. Matthiasb (talk) 10:19, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...see also page 10 of this document, published by the U.S. National Park Service. The keyword is Nipmuc. --Vejvančický (talk) 11:06, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{subst:afdrescue}}

  • Comment: Well, [t]he keyword is Nipmuc does not qualify for an article Chaubunagungamaug Reservation. It might or might not be included in to the Nipmuc article, but as Chaubunagungamaug Reservation it qualifies as original research. Again: try to research the term in the GNIS. There does not exist such a geographical name, neither as a reserve nor as a political division formed for administrative purposes. The question isn't wether the name was mentioned in the press neither if it is notable, the article claims that such a reservation does exist. The GNIS does not know such a reservation – therefor it does not exist. The GNIS is mandatory concerning US geographic names, not what some activists told the press. --Matthiasb (talk) 13:30, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Additional comment: Neither Indian Country Today claims that there exists a Chaubunagungamaug Reservation. --Matthiasb (talk) 13:33, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Sources as follow:
  • here "The Chaubunagungamaug (Webster, Massachusetts) have a privately owned ten acre reservation in northeast Connecticut."
  • "in and around the Chaubunagungamaug Reservation of Webster, Massachusetts" Reservations:Webster's Quotations, Facts and Phrases. San Diego: ICON Group International. 2008. p. 173. ISBN 0-546-66259-5. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  • "Chaubunagungamaug Reservation in Thompson, Connecticut and the Hassanamesit in Webster, Massachusetts" Ricky, Donald B. (1998). Encyclopedia of Pennsylvania Indians: A-Z. Somerset Publishers. p. 203. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  • "on the Chaubunagungamaug reservation" "Indian 'Love' of the Land Still Florishes". Worcester Telegram Gazette. April 27, 1992.
  • "during an outdoor rehearsal at the Chaubunagungamaug Reservation" "Members of Nipmuc Tribe Look to Keep Their Culture Alive". Boston Globe. June 6, 2009.

Obviously it exists, and is notable enough for inclusion. (GregJackP (talk) 01:18, 31 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]

It is needed to understand what an Indian reservation is. Since it the BIA did not recognize it, it does not exist whatever the Nipmuc are feeling it should be. If so the relevant information can be included into the Nipmuc article but there should not exist an article about a not existing reservation which is also wrongly categorized as a reservation. The article and it's categorization does imply for the reader that such a reservation does officially exists. It does not. (Needless to point out that Webster's Quotations, Facts and Phrases mentioned above is a self reference to wikipedia.) --Matthiasb (talk) 10:34, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
State may also have reservations - your reference is to a self-reference to Wikipedia - should we discount that? Or should we look at List of Indian reservations in the United States#State Designated American Indian Reservation? The later lists a dozen state recognized reservations. Just because the Federal Government does not recognize the tribe, that does not mean that the Nipmuc are no longer Indians, any more than the Menominee ceased to be Indians when the BIA terminated their tribal status in the 60's (their federal recognition was later restored). In Connecticut, state law has established Indian "reservations" for several tribes - not under federal jurisdiction, and not subject to BIA mis-management. (GregJackP (talk) 12:04, 31 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Well, the article does not give a source that the State of Connecticut recognized th Chaubunagungamaug Reservation (not the capitalization!), this is not a discussion on the Nipmuc or the band of them which is partly described in the article. --Matthiasb (talk) 14:18, 1 April 2010 (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/Chaubunagungamaug_Reservation&oldid=1069662881"