Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pretty Nose (2nd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 keep. For a discussion that by headcount is overwhelmingly keep this discussion brings up rather complex and thoughtfully advanced questions about notability. Those who feel this topic should be deleted rely on our standard measures ways of interpreting notability including the General Notability Guideline and argue, sometimes with a great deal of lament, that this subject simply does not meet our standards. For those feel this is a topic that should be kept the argument is not so straightforward but essentially suggests when looking at the totality of the information that notability has been established.
In cases like these the first question to ask is whether there is verifiable information about this topic, as notability requires evidence. While sources were presented which do not have information about this topic, and some general discussion about what place oral histories have in verifiability, there is a consensus that the information in the article is verifiable. The crux of the discussion therefore is not whether verifiable information exists, but whether enough such information exists and whether what exists adds up to enough that a standalone article is appropriate coverage of the topic. Ultimately the consensus of editors weigh in is that the answer to both those questions is yes and as such we have a consensus to keep the article. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:18, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty Nose

[edit]
Discussion about a possible close

Closing note: I've been asked to close this, as a neutral but epxerienced closer of difficult AfDs. I have a non-specialist awareness of the general situation, and am very aware of the policy implications. I am in the process of formulating the close, which may be fairly lengthy, as I intend to discus both the general and specific issues. I have a few questions I'd like answered: 1. I do not see the PBS show referred to exactly: can someone provide a link or transcript? 2. Where is the first or most substantial evidence that she was in fact known as a chief? What I consider a fairly trustworthy source for the tradition, ref. 4, refers to another woman in the battle as having worn a war bonnet, but not her. DGG ( talk ) 07:39, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, thank you for the thoughtful questions. I can respond to #2: The Al Jazeera article states she was a chief by analysis of her attire… that's not as compelling as I'd like. I just found this textbook proof (pg. 230) that refers to her as a war chief. It’s only a caption, but they could have gone with “warrior” if they weren’t confident about it. SAGE seems to be reliable, though this appears to be a youth textbook.
As an alternative to deletion, if that is how you are leaning, I ask that you consider the following options:
  • merge to Laton Alton Huffman, who took those portraits, with a section about the portraits/her. The portrait on her article is used all over the internet, often without attribution of the artist or the subject, so it would be nice if Wikipedia were able to step up and put her name on it and add some sources. I see this as being a pretty good compromise. It would even improve the short article on Huffman.
  • draftify so I (and others, if anyone else is interested) can work on the article. I'm getting more books and sources for these American Indian articles this week. I sometimes spend months on articles I create before they’re ready and I'll spend that much time to improve existing articles into the strongest they can be, too. I will call, email, and generally make a pest of myself until I can talk to someone who can give answers that lead to acceptable sources. The fact that a good 15 or so articles on American Indians of unclear notability were all nominated within, what, 1-2 days, has had my attention divided between them or I'd have begun this process. I'd like a good chance to improve coverage of Pretty Nose, whether that's in an article all about her or a section in another article. Thank you! --DiamondRemley39 (talk) 11:20, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
AfDs for this article:

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

Pretty Nose (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. Unable to locate any significant biographical details in secondary sources. The article suggests this person is notable for one event. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:24, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:24, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:01, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While biographic details are scarce, multiple independent reliable sources demonstrate notability per WP:BASIC ("If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability"). This is the case in many our short biographical articles of uncontested notability. Brandmeistertalk 18:53, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sources were found in the previous AFD for this and are also in the article. She was a chief who participated in a historically significant battle so is notable as any white general from the battle is. Dream Focus 19:50, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since when is Arapaho war chief = United States Army General? Mind you Custer was a lieutenant colonel, not a general. Also no evidence has been presented that she played a significant leadership role in that battle. -Indy beetle (talk) 06:26, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Most of the sources are of a picture of her. That is not in depth coverage..Slatersteven (talk) 14:04, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In-depth coverage is not a necessary requirement. WP:BASIC states that "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability;" That's what we have here – breadth rather than depth. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:11, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Slightly off-topic: Western American Indian culture treated all equally, chiefs had no special hierarchical authority over any other combatant, but a chief was a position of honor and respect at least, and we might find a way to equate that honorary position into notability. Our cultural biases against this sort of thing are the same that existed in the 1870s when people thought of leaderless Indians as chaotic and savage that required imposition of hierarchy. Thus people like Chief Joseph were thought of as great military leaders in the western press and to this day, but in fact they were not actually imposing top down decisions for the tribe (see Chief Joseph & the Flight of the Nez Perce). Still, a chief is someone the tribe thought of as being notable. -- GreenC 15:33, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Enough sources available to establish her notability. We do not need other thresholds for non-white people. The Banner talk 17:04, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Her role as a woman war chief in the Battle of Little Bighorn, one of the most significant events in the Indian Wars, is notable. Not sure what other white standards you need from her considering white American women weren't even allow to own property, vote, have a job etc at the time she was leading warriors from her tribe. oncamera 04:22, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Why? This is what I get from the sources:
    • The Al Jazeera article is about her grandson, not about her. This is all it really says about her: "Soldier Wolf’s 101-year-old grandmother, Pretty Nose, was a veteran herself and her red, black and white beaded cuffs meant she was an Arapaho war chief. She had fought in the Battle of Little Big Horn..."
    • The Archive Grid source is a description of photo collection which says a photo of her is included in it. Basically a directory listing, and it's sourced as an example of an incorrect identification of her tribal affiliation.
    • The Princeton University Library source is a photo of her as part of a photo archive. No information about her given, other than identifying her as in the photo.
    • The Montana Historical Society source is the same photo of her as the source above (I think, it won't load) with a similar lack of information.
    • The Art Institute of Chicago source is a photo of her alleged sister (which has been determined by the author of this article through original research). Absolutely zero mention of Pretty Nose.
There is no demonstration of notability at all. Unless our notability criteria has been modified to read "Women who are not white and have been photgraphed are notable". All I'm getting from the keep votes above are "WP:ILIKEIT". -Indy beetle (talk) 06:21, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:19, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:19, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:19, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is the sort of western bias I mentioned above, about how we have preconceptions of what a chief does or that people have "roles" in battle, which runs counter to how plains Indians actually were. -- GreenC 17:56, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, the source doesn't even confirm that she was a war chief (whatever role that would have placed upon her, if any) during the battle. For all we truly know she was given the title after the battle. -Indy beetle (talk) 19:01, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this notable war chief. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 00:17, 28 September 2020 (UTC) and edit: her being the subject of those photographs also adds to a case of WP:GNG. --DiamondRemley39 (talk) 00:00, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per all of the above, and to prevent further erosion of our coverage of notable women of colour. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:28, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I find GreenC's argument persuasive. Having someone who's more experienced with the subject matter is always helpful in these discussions. The people who are voting delete so far do not seem to have that expertise. — Toughpigs (talk) 18:03, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I honestly choose to believe many voting "delete" on all of these articles are simply ignorant of American Indian culture. I started out thinking that this is just another case of blatant bias but as I have went over each and every AfD and saw the attacks made I find myself believing that they just don't know what it's like to be a member of an indigenous tribe, even today. Chiefs, of any kind, were notable people. We have war bonnets being called immaterial. We have the one person who was the catalyst that caused the massacre at Wounded Knee being called insignificant and irrelevant. I liken it to the US in WW2 believing the Japanese were inferior pilots because their eyes were slanted. Likewise the Japanese believed the American pilots weren't brave enough to stay in the fight. It is just the case of two cultures not understanding each other. If you want to argue notability based on Wikipedia guidelines then argue your point for or against. Once you start pushing Euro-American cultural norms off as reasons to disprove notability in American Indians and calling deeply sacred artifacts of American Indian culture immaterial, you lose me as a possible ally in any discussion.Tsistunagiska (talk) 20:48, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • 👍 Like Brandmeistertalk 22:00, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Tsistunagiska: I've written dozens of articles on African figures (mostly Congolese politicians, including traditional chiefs) and wrote an article on the first Native American to practice law in North Carolina. I've also voted to delete this article. If I'm part of a cabal "pushing Euro-American cultural norms" I'm apparently quite terrible at it. I guess it's not possible that I gave my reasoning by listing all of the problems with the sources (because I totally did not do just that), and that I'm simply just an ignorant schmuck. -Indy beetle (talk) 03:50, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Indy beetle: Would you like a cookie? So the fact you wrote one article on an American Indian figure that focused almost totally on his political career makes you a cultural expert on American Indians? Did you research the Lumbee tribe? Dig into the subjects cultural past? I am willing to bet it was nothing more than just another word in an article to you. Argue your points about notability using your subjective opinion on what guidelines say and mean but don't pretend you are some expert on the cultural beliefs of American Indians because you wrote a few articles. It's quite offensive to those who live it every day.Tsistunagiska (talk) 13:52, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Tsistunagiska: I didn't claim to be *an expert* on Native American cultures. You bet wrong by the way; I'm sure I know very little about the Lumbee tribe compared to all the material is out there and am certainly no expert on them, but I do like to think the word means something more to me seeing as I've personally known a member of the tribe and have spent quite a bit of time taking pictures in Robeson County, reading about their attempts to get full federal recognition, etc. All I was claiming is that I am quite conscious of countering systemic bias and cultural differences since I regularly work in undercovered subjects, and I wasn't seeing that as an issue in this article. Please assume a little good faith and consider that I wasn't satisfied by the sources (which in this case is not a cultural perspective issue, unless you can explain to me why), not that I'm just blustering about nuking articles because of my Western background. -Indy beetle (talk) 02:19, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • The cultural perspective issue is that nobody involved in these AfD discussions this week is an academic expert in Native American history and culture. We're the group of Wikipedians who happen to be here right now. It is very easy for me to find good sources about my own culture and history; I have lots of books, and I know where to look for similar sources. It's much more difficult for me to find good sources about cultures that I'm not familiar with, and for an AfD discussion I'll do some database searches, but I'm probably not going to get out of my chair. Therefore, for any given AfD discussion, I will be able to offer better quality sources about my own culture than I will about a culture that I'm not familiar with. Also, many of the existing books are written from a dominant culture perspective, because there weren't a lot of Native American tribes in the 1870s that owned publishing companies. So the judgment of sources is not pure, or above cultural bias. It is more difficult for a random group of Wikipedians to quickly find sources about Native American culture than it is for that group to quickly find sources about dominant American or European cultures. It is a cultural perspective issue. — Toughpigs (talk) 05:19, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • SIGCOV in multiple RS as required by WP:GNG is not a cultural perspective issue. If SIGCOV in multiple RS exists the page can stay, if not it goes. If some "academic expert in Native American history and culture" wishes to recreate the page in future with SIGCOV in multiple RS then they are free to do so. Mztourist (talk) 06:05, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • @Toughpigs: Ok, so looking at her cultural background, she is most likely Arapaho naturally. The Arapaho language does not have its own written orthography (it's transliterated with Latin characters) thus if we're missing something it would have to be whatever the Latin transliteration of the Arapaho words for "Pretty Nose" are. Can someone figure that out and search it? And it seems most Arapaho language material is naturally audio-visual stuff, so the chances of us finding a published Arapaho language book on her are rather slim. The reason why I'm hesitant to buy into this "we couldn't possibly know enough to apply our standards so let's keep it" argument is that one, by that logic, we'd be keeping a lot of stuff that would not be notable. Secondly, in a similar deletion discussion that was in an area I'm very familiar with, I responded to the assertions that "there must be other source material" by doing fairly extensive research and finding very little in return. But, of course, if someone is willing to dig into an Arapaho specialist archive than we can give them time by draftifying the article. Call me a deletionist, but I think keeping an article when there is no current proof or direct hint of proof that it is notable per sourcing is a bad idea. For the record, I've found this news article which states that she was the subject of a modern painting series by a Native American artist [1]. Will it help with notability? Maybe a little, either way if this article is kept it should be added there. @Mztourist: You put my concerns plainly. -Indy beetle (talk) 06:12, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • @Mztourist: I wholeheartedly disagree with your assessment. In order for it to not be a culturally biased guideline all cultures would have to have equal coverage on all topics which we know, as it has been pointed out, is factually incorrect. We start from two different places on the spectrum of sourced works. Most of American Indian traditions, stories and related topics are passed down orally. The only reason we know as much as we do about the Battle of Little Big Horn is because American journalist had to go to the Sioux/Cheyenne tribes at some point, possibly years later, and write down their oral descriptions of the battle. Almost all content we have or know about the the battle came from the American Indian account. There weren't any written or published documents from the American Indian. It was orally translated. So to assume that, even today, the cultures start from the same point is ridiculous. I agree with you in that, as it is written, the guideline is to be taken literal. But it is a wholly biased guideline which discriminates against Indigenous people across the world and limits the ability to have them equally represented here in a global encyclopedia. This article does not assert anything about the subject that isn't true or can't be sourced. It doesn't make far-fetched claims. To say there is no cultural bias in the guideline, whether intended or not, is simple ignorance (again, not a slight as I am ignorant on a lot of things) of the cultures these articles cover.Tsistunagiska (talk) 14:31, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
                • @Tsistunagiska: Yes of course Wikipedia favors written, published, secondary sources. Does this leave certain mostly-oral traditions at a disadvantage? Yes. But how else would you set a basis for creating an encyclopedia? WP:Original Research? -Indy beetle (talk) 16:11, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
                  • @Indy beetle: It starts with an understanding and acknowledgement that there is a built in bias and finding ways to eliminate that bias by allowing inclusion so long as there are verifiable sources, even if self-published, or cursory mention is given when the claims made are not grossly exaggerated. Some of these people listed in the recent AfD's and still others will never attain the height of notability required according to these historically Euro-American and modern/contemporary favored guidelines. That does not diminish their import to history or their notability in regards to the story of their people. It's like Wilfred Holmes whose only real notability was the fact he came up with the ruse that fooled the Japanese at Midway. One event is his notable moment. He received an award for his part in that event. Beyond that, the article gives personal information but it all stems from that one event. I believe he deserves his article. I would vote to keep it if it ever came up for deletion but it won't. Why? Because the biased approach of the guidelines protects his article. He is American and a war veteran and has been covered in movies and books and press releases in a more modern era. It is not about righting wrongs but simply doing what is right. Tsistunagiska (talk) 16:37, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
              • @Indy beetle: & @Mztourist:: I agree that we need to find sources and improve the article for it to stay. I wasn't saying that "sources must exist" is a solid argument, or that we have to keep this article based on presumed or imaginary sources. Indy beetle asked for an explanation for how their assessment of sources could be affected by cultural bias, and I answered that question. In our quest for verification and notability, it is good for us to be aware of the perspective that we bring, and that "what I have in front of me" is not the same thing as "what exists in the world". That means that when someone brings up the question of cultural bias, we respond with curiosity and respect, as an opportunity to learn, rather than a policy challenge that we need to shut down. — Toughpigs (talk) 14:43, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
                • Toughpigs and Tsistunagiska WP:GNG and WP:V are fundamental. You can't build an encyclopedia based on oral accounts as these may differ depending on the teller and can't be verified, making it no better than any self-published source. If a person or event is sufficiently important it will presumably be recorded in writing eventually and go through some editorial review process. Is this biased against cultures without a written history? Yes, but if information can't be verified it doesn't belong here and you will have to find another place to house it. Mztourist (talk) 04:56, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
                  • @Mztourist: Doesn't belong here? Why? Because it's not European enough? Because White European/American's suppressed any knowledge of American Indian heritage and those who did try to keep to it were hunted down like dogs by racist military action? Then when it turned to the mid-20th century white people in high positions turned to Eugenics to eradicate the "tainted" blood of the indigenous and people of color from their society. I'm saying that a PBS show about a woman, her heroics and her war bonnet, a written account with a picture of a young woman from prominent artist and photographers of her time and the written account about the man whose action got his own people wiped out at Wounded Knee is sufficient enough to pass them as notable given the age they lived in, the culture they came from and the available sources due to the imperialist system of racism they faced. Quite frankly your dismissal of these facts and flat out rejection of any acknowledgement or understanding is appalling and speaks to the issues they faced and even still face in a world full of the same attitudes directed at indigenous people where they only measure up and are worthy of inclusion when they act like the "civilized white man". If that is the battle line you want to draw I will vote keep on every article just as a protest to your bias. I try to put thought into my comments and responses and even my reasons for voting the way I do. We don't have to agree but the indifference and the comment you just made isn't about policy as much as it is your own personal views so now you get mine.Tsistunagiska (talk) 12:49, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Tsistunagiska because those are the standards that WP is based on. If any page doesn't meet WP:GNG and WP:V then it has no place here and can go on another site with different standards. Your outrage doesn't change anything, nor does your implication of bias and racism on my part. FWIW my grandfather was a member of the Quinault Nation who fought in the 1st Marine Division at Guadalcanal, but despite my cultural heritage I recognise and comply with the standards of the project rather than claiming exceptions for any ethnicity, because accuracy is more important than including dubiously sourced information. If you choose to "vote keep on every article just as a protest to your bias." rather than based on policy then that will take you to ANI or other sanctions as will any continued implications of racism. Mztourist (talk) 07:05, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

{od} @Mztourist:, If you think for one second that your attempts to silence me by making threats are going to work you are wrong. My mother was Cherokee, my great-grandfather was murdered in a Nazi work camp in Germany. Just because of who your ancestors are doesn't make you right. Others here have voted to keep because these articles do pass ((WP:GNG)). Your meaningless threats directed at me personally will not silence me. Get over your superior attitude. Your opinion matters as much as anyone elses here.Tsistunagiska (talk) 20:56, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Tsistunagiska: I think the crux of the problem here is Mztourist does not appreciate—like most editors—the implication that their vote on an AfD makes them a racist. -Indy beetle (talk) 23:45, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Indy beetle: How someone votes on an AFD makes them a racist? Magnolia677 (talk) 10:00, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Indy beetle: I also don't like being treated like my opinion on an article is any less important than someone else's just because you have a different opinion. It doesn't feel good to be marginalized, characterized and made to feel less than significant, does it? But since everyone here seems to grow around their opinion and then, when challenged, they claim the guidelines are objective I figured that's the typical way it's done. If you will notice, on articles that had no reliable sources I voted to delete so nothing I do is without thoughtful contemplation of the guidelines and rules. I am a warrior and I will always fight for these articles when there is just cause to and sources to back up the claims made. I won't apologize for that as I would not expect you to either.Tsistunagiska (talk) 13:05, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Tsistunagiska everyone here is expected to make policy-based arguments and to the extent that you do that then your views are as valid as anyone else's, however if you continue to make emotive comments and veiled accusations of racism then people will take that into account and may well take you to ANI or other sanctions.Mztourist (talk) 10:02, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mztourist (talk · contribs) That is the second time you have made a threat of ANI against me trying to silence opposition to your subjective views and opinions on Wikipedia policy. If you are going to do it then do it. You are making veiled threats against me while chastising me for your presumption I made veiled threats. I have been called biased by others. No one threatened them with sanctions, as well they shouldn't. As humans we are predisposed to certain bias as it relates to our experiences in life. Many of the American Indian community here on Wikipedia have been threatened into silence being told they can't create, edit or even comment on articles about their own tribe because, as they were informed, it is a COI. Don't pretend it isn't present or doesn't exist. The policy here, when taken to the extreme, both favors the traditional colonial powers who documented everything and are deletionist by nature, discriminating against aboriginal and indigenous people and the historical figures within their respective communities. I have never said we should allow something simply because it is orally spoken but I will remind you that anything, outside of archaeological studies and photographs, related to indigenous people is and was orally translated and just because it was written down by European/Americans doesn't add to it one shred of relevance to the people, some of which come here, who know it to be true. My argument was that, you can't start from two different places on the scale and try to apply the rules evenly. All you are doing is locking in the bias and furthering the agenda of past discrimination. Yo go from simply not trying to right the wrongs of the past, which Wikipedia has stated it is not here to do, to being an active participant in continuing the wrongs of the past. The guideline has to be more fluid in certain situations without losing the integrity of the encyclopedia. If a reliable and reputable source is found in which perceived facts are listed or portrayed about an event or person from before indigenous peoples were even known to have written records in which that event or person is notable or played a significant role in the history of their people that should be included here. But I compromised in that only the facts as they are sourced should be provided thereby achieving the general notability requirements. If a source can't be found it shouldn't be included. That is why I voted to delete those articles presented which had no reliable or verifiable sources. Tsistunagiska (talk) 13:13, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Tsistunagiska as Indy beetle has pointed out almost all of the history of Little Big Horn comes from Indian sources because Custer's force was wiped out. Yet as Indy beetle notes below, in 14 books about the battle (which include transcriptions of Indian oral histories of the battle), there is no record of her or her role in the battle. So we have multiple RS but not SIGCOV. So the page should be deleted as it fails WP:GNG, no matter how much you like it. Mztourist (talk) 05:39, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Mztourist: Ok, again with the patronizing? I guess we are going to play that game. I also said the majority of the account of the battle came from the AMERICAN Indian perspective. Indians come from India ;-). I believe the article passes the essence of WP:GNG, as does a consensus of editors who have contributed to this AfD, no matter how much you DON'T like it. Deletionist are always the same. You go around looking for articles you think you can win on but you picked a topic and articles that a lot of people are passionate and knowledgeable about and you aren't just going to run us over with your theories or your personal bias against this particular article, and others like it, based on your own subjective application of the guidelines and essays. We can apply our own logic and thoughts. She has over ten photographs, enough description from multiple sources that are listed and historically she fits in the scenario as it is told. If you studied the history of the Cheyenne and Arapaho people you would know that. The article is not slanted in its approach. It tells everything as it has been described in the sources provided. It doesn't try to correct any narrative and it doesn't rely on oral attribution. Simply put, it states facts backed up by evidence. You can try to deny the evidence. You can try to overlook it but it doesn't change what it is, FACTS.Tsistunagiska (talk) 13:21, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Add Wikipedia is "common sense" based. See WP:COMMON "a fundamental principle, it is above any policy." It makes no sense to treat certain topics from oral cultures as lacking notability because of poor written records. The application of rules is subjective based on the editors degree of common sense and personal POV, background, personal biases, informed on a subject and so on. When the rules are treated mechanistically it becomes like "only following orders" divorced from reality which can lead to bad things. -- GreenC 14:34, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@GreenC: Ok, please show a reliabile oral source (which is inherently difficult because oral sources are almost always WP:PRIMARY) that can be used to expand this article. -Indy beetle (talk) 21:18, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The article has plenty of reliable sources demonstrating notability. The issue I raised concerns poor contemporary sourcing ie. tribal newspaper articles about her, tribal books etc.. because those things never existed in an oral culture. Add to that the culture was nearly wiped out in the late 19th and early 20th centuries so those members who could have passed down her story to subsequent generations were not around to do so, or had the native language and ways schooled out of them - there was a wildfire of sorts. Thus we look the evidence available and weigh that against the issues at hand. -- GreenC 00:23, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per various, especially GreenC's argument above - this is a case where I think it wise to err on the side of inclusion. Sourcing is going to be difficult, I think - not only is she native American, but she's a figure from the nineteenth century, which I have in the past found limits online sourcing severely. Which is why I tend to give a bit more weight to the sources that exist. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 00:24, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Draftify Updated !vote: changing to draftify because the NSOLDIER claim might not meet WP:V per the discussion below. Best to draftify it while research continues. My original !vote follows. Lev!vich 06:16, 6 October 2020 (UTC) - I agree, err on the side of inclusion for this article. The sourcing isn't really there, but she was a war chief. If I understand correctly, this is akin to being like a four- or five-star general leading a major battle. I can see the argument for merging, too, but her high rank justifies a stand-alone page, I think. Lev!vich 22:44, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Levivich: Can you please point us to a source which confirms that an Arapaho war chief was equivalent to "a four- or five-star general"? And if she was "leading a major battle" than why are there absolutely zero mentions of her in accounts of the Battle of Little Bighorn? -Indy beetle (talk) 16:19, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      @Indy beetle: Well, the answer to your second question is easy: she was an NA woman in 1876. And I wouldn't say there are zero mentions; there are some sources, e.g. those in the article and discussed above. Heck, mentions is all we have. There are plenty of sources that say a war chief is, well, a chief in times of war, a leader of soldiers in combat, but I don't know of any that equate it to a general, although I didn't think that equivalency was controversial. In other words, I'm thinking any war chief would meet NSOLDIER 2, and while I'm a "WP:GNG or die" AFD voter, the one place I'm comfortable making exceptions is when the subject is a member of a historically-oppressed minority group. She's a member of two, so in this case I'm OK with a keep based on NSOLDIER without GNG. But if she doesn't meet NSOLDIER, if my understanding of her role is mistaken, then that would change my !vote. (Not that it would matter.) Lev!vich 01:34, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Levivich: There are sources that say she fought in the battle. However, none of those sources say she led any forces in the battle. To clarify, no records that are primarily about the Battle of Little Bighorn mention her. Strange indeed seeing as most of what we know from the battle is from the Native American perspective, considering allmost all of Custer's forces were wiped out. -Indy beetle (talk) 17:48, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • No records we have yet examined. It's an important distinction. There are dozens of books about the Battle of the Little Bighorn. Not all are viewable online. There are still I can't guess how many articles in newspapers and journals. I'm not saying to assume sources exist, but we can't say the search for sources has been near exhaustive. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 18:16, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@DiamondRemley39: Ok, a lit review then (avoiding the works that focus mostly on Custer best I can tell) using "Pretty Nose" as search term:
Strange indeed that here we have fourteen books on the Battle of Little Bighorn and none seem to mention Pretty Nose and her alleged leadership role in the battle (which even the existing sources do not attribute to her, they merely say she fought in it). I welcome others to expand the search. -Indy beetle (talk) 21:53, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Indy beetle: Yes, it's the beginnings of a literature review--and I say beginnings because it would have to be more than that to be a full literature review of something so major as this battle. It would also need to include articles from the likes of JSTOR and newspaper archives. I don't expect that here... from anyone other than myself. My take is that we'd be doing a bad job if we didn't look offline. Did you look at works about L.A. Huffman or generally search to see what's been written about him and his body of work? I'm in the middle of that now. --DiamondRemley39 (talk) 00:41, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep user GreenC makes a compelling case. A war chief in a critically important notable battle, does anyone think WP:NSOLDIER#3 or #4 can be appropriate? Lightburst (talk) 23:04, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Have any of the sources given what the non-English version of her name is? I'd like to look for it in sources. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 18:16, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Research update According to Mark Soldier Wolf's obituary, his grandmother was named Cassie Little Aunt. "Grandma Cassie" is referred to on the photo of Pretty Nose in the Al Jazeera article about Mark Soldier Wolf. Here are two clippings about Cassie Little Aunt's life and death: 1 and 2. I went back and forth on whether Pretty Nose and Cassie may be the same person... Looked at census records for Cassie Little Aunt. She's rather consistently listed as born Jan 13, 1868 (though whether this was self reported or from other records I do not know). If that photo was indeed taken in 1879, that's most certainly not her. I lean towards the Al Jazeera article mistakenly called Pretty Nose his grandma instead of his great-grandma (which is what she is called in the caption). What does this mean? Well, when I have fresh eyes, I can look a bit more into Cassie Little Ant and her collateral family mentioned in her obituary and see who she is living with in census records to see if I can find her mother Pretty Nose mentioned by another name, etc. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 03:09, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@DiamondRemley39: This article claiming Cassie Little Ant was at the Battle of Little Bighorn says she was actually 10 years older than her date on the census, so she could have been born 1858, making her 21 in 1879 and possibly the same age as the woman in the photo. Little Ant (also known as Charles Little), her husband, may have been a chief himself because the Northern Arapahoe historical preservation office shared a photo of him wearing a headdress and photographed with the famous Wovoka. There are also documents/treaties with the US government that he signed. Maybe you could try emailing the Arapahoe historical preservation office and ask them if they know more about Pretty Nose/Cassie Little Ant? The Arapahoe census marks her down as being from the Cheyenne tribe before marrying Little Ant, so you may have to contact their preservation office to inquire about her under her maiden name "Red Necklace" too.  oncamera  (talk page) 05:07, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it says she had been thought to be 11 years older, but records suggested she was younger. My brief look at census records (several, and not just Indian census rolls but the federal census) skeep pointing to 1868. But I haven't looked closely enough or checked to see if I can tell that Cassie Little Ant and Charles Little Ant were the ones interviewed. One census record said that Cassie Little Ant did not speak English. Several records suggesting 1868 points to that being the one, though I'd be more convinced if I saw them more consistent AND older (when she is younger... the young remember their age and have little reason to fib about it). This will be good to sort out but it makes no difference to notability whether Cassie Little Ant and Pretty Nose are on person or two. Good idea of contacting the historic preservation office. Thank you! I'll get on that once I'm done with the books. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 11:08, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is just a "hunch", but did you vote without even reading the reason for nomination (it's up at the top of the page)? Magnolia677 (talk) 19:37, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is just a "hunch". User:Magnolia677, you never actually understood WP:AGF? Your veiled personal attack is unfounded. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:51, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I read the nomination well enough to see that it doesn't deter from the inclusion of this individual as an illustration in substantial works about the period. BD2412 T 19:54, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh golly! Just having a bit of fun, what with all this Covid around killing people. The reason for nomination was hard to see, tucked in way under a bunch of text and a large template that says "Please do not contribute further". Magnolia677 (talk) 20:02, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I posted an opinion in this discussion precisely because it is the oldest active AfD that has not yet been closed. The article could be rewritten to state that some sources indicate its premises, without adopting them as true. BD2412 T 20:08, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's ok! No harm done. I've sometimes felt so strongly about an AFD that I too have just gone straight to the vote! it's kind of like this. I think your vote might not count though (because of the template). Anyway. Cheers! Magnolia677 (talk) 20:17, 11 October 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pretty_Nose_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1145972545"