Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahontoay

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. joe decker ^{talk to me} 20:13, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ahontoay[edit]

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

Tagged as hoax. I have found no evidence that this group exists and all Google hits return Wikipedia or Wikipedia mirrors. The one reference given doesn't mention this name at all. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:44, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I tried searching for them and came up empty. I even tried searching for Chippewa + repeating thunder, thinking maybe the tribe's name was spelled incorrectly, and still came up with nothing. Appears to be a hoax (or, at the minimum, it's not notable.)JoelWhy (talk) 20:15, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. --Kristjan Wager (talk) 20:25, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SNOW. Bearian (talk) 21:55, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per JoelWhy. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 22:06, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Though this is NOT a hoax, it is written not from a NPOV, about 1/3 is OR, and all is unreferenced. There are also blatantly incorrect statements made such as "In Ojibwa the name Ahontoay means 'Repeating Thunder'", which is not how one would say "repeating thunder" in either Ojibwe or Cree. Though "Ahon-to-ays Ojibwa Band (a.k.a. Rocky Boy Ojibway Band)" have submitted an application to the IBIA for formal recognition years ago, BIA in their IBIA report states "Incomplete letter of Intent to Petition [submitted by the group on] 2/1/1996". Until either the chief or the unrecognised tribe becomes notable, this article should not exist. CJLippert (talk) 16:32, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per CJLippert, but I'm not sure he's correct that its not a hoax. Definitely smells fishy. Lord Roem (talk) 17:25, 18 April 2012 (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.