Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moon-eyed people

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 speedy keep. WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) Mkdw ^talk 01:29, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Moon-eyed people

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

The article purports to describe a legend concerning a hypothetical native American people, however is weakly sourced. There may indeed be Cherokee legend concerning the "moon-eyed people" however all we have to go on is a few odd mentions which all ultimately seem to be based on the exact same source - a mention these people in 1797. I'm sure we all agree that not every nugget of folklore is WP:N - and given the lack of substantial coverage of this story I think we are far below the threshold of notability at the moment. Salimfadhley (talk) 12:51, 30 April 2013 (UTC Comment - this article was recently the subject of a discussion on WP:FTN. --Salimfadhley (talk) 12:53, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Far too many RSS hits on Google scholar and Google books. The fact that you can date the first time this legend was mentioned briefly in print to the year 1797, does not make all of the subsequent, more detailed mentions of the legend by Cherokee academic experts go away by implication. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 13:18, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Til, I'd be happy to withdraw this AFD if we could see the sources on the article significantly improved. After a google search I was unable to find better sources than the weak ones than we presently have in the article. None of the sources we currently have discuss these moon-eyed people in any significant detail. --Salimfadhley (talk) 13:35, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you have not google-searched very hard; entire chapters have been written about the moon-eyed people legend. It's more a case of nothing is good enough for you when you're personally determined to see a bit of somebody else's culture disappear from wikipedia-land, although anyone wishing to know about the Moon-eyed people can still find abundant sources from just about anywhere else. Once again, it seems you would rather they get their reliable info on this from elsewhere rather than from us. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 13:42, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Til, no need to give me chapters. Just one chapter, one good source would do. As I mentioned above, the AFD was motivated by my perception of a lack of extensive, substantial coverage. If you could show just one reliable source which has covered this matter in some detail I think you will have made your point quite well. --Salimfadhley (talk) 15:25, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:05, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Clearly WP:Notable, well known, albeit controversial subject. Could be better sourced, and no doubt will be. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:10, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Certainly seems to have a couple of reliable academic articles on it. Don't know why we would require more than that. Peregrine981 (talk) 15:10, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I will probably !vote keep, but I really would like to see the actual chapters on this story. I've been asking Til for sources until I'm blue in the face, and this is the first time he has said there are whole chapters written about this group. And Peregrine, what are the academic articles you mention? I've spent a lot of time looking for sources and haven't found those. Dougweller (talk) 15:16, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I second that. Peregrine981, could you kindly point myself and Dougweller to the single most reliable academic source pertaining to this legend. All it takes is one good source, at the moment we have a few very poor sources. --Salimfadhley (talk) 15:25, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:The articles already included, plus below seem to be more than sufficient to establish notability. Do you consider them unreliable? Peregrine981 (talk) 21:14, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Not even worth considering for deletion.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 15:46, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems notable enough, but I wouldn't mind seeing better sourcing as well. ~Adjwilley (talk) 15:54, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability has been established from published sources. This is a recorded remnant of oral history of an early unidentified tribe. Unfortunately subsequent writers have attached wild theories to this group, so the article will have to be monitored to keep out the fringe theorists, much in the way Walam Olum has to be monitored. -Uyvsdi (talk) 17:08, 30 April 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]
Keep: There is weirder and more fringe stuff on wiki than this, but the sourcing is problematic for linking the Welsh legend of Madoc to the Cherokee. Til is not helping by claiming that there is a lot of material without giving so much as one proper bibliographic citation. So long as WP:SYNTH is avoided, the article itself can stay. Montanabw^(talk) 19:19, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If there are sourcing problems with the article they should be fixed, but there is no reason the entire article needs deleting. JulesH (talk) 19:22, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment FYI Mooney, James (1902). Myths of the Cherokee. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office. pp. 22–3. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help) at Internet Archive 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:27, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IN 1902, the US Government was still grave-robbing. All that's repeated there is the 1797 account. (And gee no one is arguing that the reference to a legend about "slant-eyed ppeople" means that Chinese got there first, either... just saying...) Montanabw^(talk) 21:35, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The references presented thus far are sufficient to establish the notability (WP:GNG) of this element of Cherokee folklore. However, I also agree with some previous comments that the article should (if possible) be supplemented with contemporary scholarly analyses of this folklore motif. Via a bit of Google searching, I came across a paper with the promising title "Of Trembling Gods and Moon-Eyed People: Ruminations on the Limits of Ethnography" on Project MUSE, but alas, it is behind a paywall, so I cannot say if it is relevant or not. For anyone searching for additional sources, I'll also note that academic papers on this subject may use the original designation in the Cherokee language to refer to the "moon-eyed people" instead of the popularized English translation. --Mike Agricola (talk) 22:18, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable piece of either folklore or history depending on your point of view. Generally, I would say that most things regarded as notable enough for historical markers are nearly always suitable article subjects. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:52, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the basis that it is notable (per above), but look out for better sources and guard from fringe theorists and vandals. Ansh666 03:07, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the topic certainly look to be notable given the sources that are provided. Weak sourcing is not a reason to delete, we have to look at the topic. This topic clears the requirement to keep based on the number of independent sources. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:29, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I move to close the discussion there being a clear consensus for keep 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:06, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We don't act on 'moves to close' but as there are no !Delete votes so far I expect someone is likely to close this early. Dougweller (talk) 04:30, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and close early. The article does not appear weakly sourced, and I believe notability has been established. Everyking (talk) 18:18, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although I agree that sourcing could be better, article's subject seems to meet WP:GNG. Miniapolis 01:52, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article meets WP:GNG. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 20:48, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'll pile on... discussed in scholarly works like the Encyclopedia of American Indian History.--Bkwillwm (talk) 06:21, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is too vague. It could apply to anyone who has the moon in their eyes or people with eyes that look like the moon. Big and wide. Prince of Peas (talk) 18:22, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- — Prince of Peas (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep - notability has been established.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 22:03, 5 May 2013 (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.