Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Astakiwi, California

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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:31, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Astakiwi, California

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

The article does not meet GNG or NGEO. The source in the article is a directory listing. There is no SIGCOV of the subject, covering the topic directly and in-depth, not even the location is known. BEFORE (also for Astakaywas, Astakywich, Astaqkewa) showed directory style listings and wiki copies. // Timothy :: talk 04:48, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 04:48, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 04:48, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Found this, where the GNIS entry comes from. That's not enough to base an article on, but I'll look to see if I can find more later. Hog Farm _Bacon 04:58, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete - Not sure exactly how these sort of settlements are judged against GEOLAND, but all I can find beyond that one Smithsonian pamphlet is stuff referring to an Astakiwi tribal division, not a community. So I don't think WP:GNG is met here for a community of this name. Hog Farm _Bacon 05:22, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ Delete. No post office. I had a look at Keuchishkeni, California, which is a similar place and probably comes from the same source. I'm somewhat sensitive to issues surrounding indigenous peoples and I think there could be a debate about whether locales that are the former sites of communities of indigenous people should have a somewhat different set of guidelines. My thoughts are this:

If the locale is not legally recognized today and was not legally recognized in the past, then it does not meet #1 of WP:GEOLAND. In particular, sites of formerly legally recognized tribes could meet #1 of WP:GEOLAND. One could make an argument that this location was legally recognized by the indigenous governing body; however I have not seen evidence of that.
If there is not significant coverage, then #2 of WP:GEOLAND is not met. For example, if this locale was a mining camp, or a utility camp that had no non-trivial coverage, then it would not meet #2 of WP:GEOLAND.
If we were writing a wiki in the language of the Shasta people, then there is a chance that this locale could be considered notable, perhaps because of oral traditions or other resource to which I have no access. One could argue that this is a wiki for the English language and that the sources should be (mostly) in English. (I have seen non-English sources used on occasion, though I don't have an example off the top of my head).

That said, I have a somewhat queasy feeling about deleting this location. Comments anyone?

While I have your attention, take a look at Keuchishkeni, California and at the citation. I think that the GNIS is wrong and that Keuchishkeni is in a different county.

We might want to group Chumawi, California (see [1]), Keshlakchuis, California (see [2]) and Keuchishkeni, California into this AfD. I'll leave that for someone else.Cxbrx (talk) 16:05, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cxbrx part of me wonders if the old 1910 source the GNIS entry comes from is in error. There was definitely a group known as the Astakiwi, but I'm seeing little evidence there was a community named Astakiwi. It's possible that the 1910 source is conflating the tribal division and a village. Hog Farm _Bacon 17:32, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hog Farm. In summary, I agree, the community was probably not named Astakiwi. Here are the details: The 1910 source refers to a page 267 of Tribes of California, Contributions to North American Ethnology, Vol. III by Stephen Powers (1877). I'm not seeing Astakiwi mentioned on that page, but "Es-ta-ke'-wach" is mentioned. Looking at what redirects to Astakiwi, I see that these pages redirect: Astakaywas, California, Astakaywas, Astakywich, Astakywich, Calfiornia, Astaqkewa, Astaqkewa, California, Es-ta-ke-wach (bolding mine), Es-ta-ke-wach, California, Estakewach, Estakewach, California all created by User:Carlossuarez46. Looking at the 1911 reference, I see that these redirects could be synonyms that are listed in the 1911 reference. Unless we find a WP:RS for Astakiwi, my guess is that the 1911 reference might be an error as the name Astakiwi or As-ta-ki-wi does appear in the cited 1877 reference. Cxbrx (talk) 19:44, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:53, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to Delete. I found no evidence that there was an indigenous peoples location with this name. The 1910 source refers to a 1877 source that does not mention this location. All of the purportedly indigenous locations created by this user should be examined closely for notability. Cxbrx (talk) 21:02, 22 December 2020 (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.