Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prince of Chota

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The result was nomination withdrawn. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:22, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Prince of Chota[edit]

This whole article, indeed its very title, is fiction in its entirety. It is based on the myth of the "House of Moytoy", and more, unlike the invented title "Emperor of the Cherokee" which Alexander Cumming bestowed upon Moytoy of Tellico, the title "Prince of Chota" was never used by anyone of the period, only belatedly in Victorian pseudo-histories. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 19:32, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The use of this title in British-Cherokee diplomacy is attested in published histories and some of the primary sources are available online [1]. The person so identified appears to be the Beloved Man of Chota, variously identified as Kittagusta, Oconostota, or Attakullakulla. Some sources ambiguously refer to "X, Y, the Prince of Chote, and Z", leaving it unclear whether Y was the "Prince" or someone else. There is a contrary source where Oconostota signed a document separately from the "Prince." WillOakland (talk) 00:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I could see altering the article to merely state that fact, after removing everything else, but that wouldn't really leave very much of an article worth keeping. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 01:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as rewritten. Hopefully someone can come along with reliable sources that are not available online and expand it beyond a stub. WillOakland (talk) 04:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As the article now stands, it is accurate, if short. It does, at least, give an idea of where the myth came from. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 00:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Those of you who keep reverting the article, it's not going to work unless you provide some sources. WillOakland (talk) 05:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 04:01, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 04:56, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion request has been withdrawn by the nominator, above. WillOakland (talk) 05:31, 18 February 2009 (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.