Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kizh Gabrieleño Indians

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 redirect to Tongva people. MBisanz ^talk 04:12, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kizh Gabrieleño Indians

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

These new articles have the same subject as existing articles Tongva people and Tongva language. Differences are that the new articles call the Gabrielino language Kizh rather than Tongva, and one new article identifies one Gabrielino chief and spiritual leader whereas the old article seems to indicate contested leadership. —teb728 t c 08:15, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect If a new article duplicates an existing topic, it should be redirected to the existing article. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:01, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Question What do we do if they just recreate the article? Kizh Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians, another copy of the new article, was recreated twice and blanked once. It was in frustration over that that I brought the issue to AfD. (A fourth attempt at redirect may be sticking, but that may be just because other copies of the new article exist.) What do we do in general if they persistently recreate? Persistently redirect? Would that violate 3RR? —teb728 t c 19:44, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:41, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If a user disagrees with the redirect, that is an issue to be raised on the relevant talk page. If consensus can be reached at the talk page regarding the issue, great. If it cannot, than you have a dispute, and there are avenues available to resolve it. If the editor in question is recalcitrant and won't accept the consensus, this is considered disruptive, and can be handled through any number of disciplinary means. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:55, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is a blatant POV fork and should be speedied and the author warned. The author has also contacted me off-wiki. I think the information is plausible, and if they had reliable sources, it could be included in Tongva people, but continuing to make POV forks without discussion can only serve to discredit the idea.--Curtis Clark (talk) 21:10, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 00:04, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I added information from reliable sources to Tongva people; now there is even less need for the POV forks.--Curtis Clark (talk) 04:58, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 01:40, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all to Tongva people per Curtis. Bearian (talk) 19:31, 26 November 2012 (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.