Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Métis of Maine

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 delete. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 23:37, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Métis of Maine[edit]

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

Non-notable social club. Most google hits use this page and the website as only source. Unsourced since 2010. I believe this is a for-profit venture and they are attempting to use WP to misrepresent themselves. - CorbieV^☊ 00:27, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 05:10, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 05:10, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some references were added. The group was formed in 2003 and in 2013 had about 400 members. State of Maine extends recognition to the MÉTIS. Ludi Romani (talk) 06:58, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I find it shocking the state gave any recognition, as culturally the group is neither Métis nor Northeastern Woodlands, but it's not the first time something like this has happened. The 400 people claim is in that one brief article. I don't think it was investigated. Personally, I don't buy it. - CorbieV^☊ 19:32, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Found the "recognition" was BOGUS: http://www.maine.gov/legis/opla/JUDbillsumm2007.pdf shows that the Bill draft linked here (LD 115), was not enacted. ("ONTP" means "ought not to pass") A search of current Maine Statutes, shows no formal "recognition" for this group. Apparently they talked someone into introducing a bill in the state legislature and it went nowhere. Montanabw ^(talk) 07:47, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:34, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - given the aforementioned review of sources. St★lwart¹¹¹ 06:37, 2 February 2015 (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.