Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chippewa Island

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 no consensus. A redirect can be accomplished by regular editing. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:42, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chippewa Island[edit]

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

Everything in the article is adequately explained in the Chippewas of Georgina Island First Nation, there is no need for another article that also fails to be notable enough to warrant an article by itself. Also a stub. The Verified Cactus 100% 19:59, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chippewas of Georgina Island First Nation 33A The Verified Cactus 100% 20:02, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:41, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:41, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Chippewas of Georgina Island First Nation. While certainly it's possible in principle for a First Nation and the Indian reserve it lives on to qualify for two separate articles as two separate topics, since one is a group of people and the other is a geographic entity, in actual practice it's somewhere between extremely hard and virtually impossible to actually write anything genuinely substantive about the reserve beyond a boilerplate statement that it exists and is occupied by the First Nation, the end. If we could write and source anything genuinely substantive about the reserve as a geographic entity beyond simply reduplicating content from the nation article, or if there were an WP:XY problem because the reserve was shared by multiple distinct First Nations groups, then there would be a case for separate articles — but neither of those situations applies here. If all we can really write or source is a boilerplate statement that the reserve exists, then it should simply be addressed as part of the nation article instead of standing alone as a separate permastub. By the same token, we don't maintain separate articles about Toronto as a geographic entity and "Torontonians" as a cultural one; we address both aspects in tandem in the same article. Bearcat (talk) 17:49, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:30, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, even as a permastub. It is a distinct geographic entity, delineated by INAC, and separate from the municipalities and even the province surrounding it. I created this, and many other reserve stubs, in an effort to address Wiki's lack of indigenous content. It invites others to add content specific to the reserve. Also, Chippewa Island is a shared reserve, b/w Chippewas of Georgina Island, Chippewas of Rama and Beausoleil. FUNgus guy (talk) 06:22, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:36, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islands-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:52, 23 July 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.