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. There is little support for outright deletion and consensus that the content is notable. A merge (which support for is in the minority) can still be discussed.
Eddie891TalkWork21:39, 1 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment - It seems almost an impossible task without actually looking through a healthy percentage of the hundreds of books about Sitting Bull (not Crazy Horse) and the Lakota...every mention may only be a trivial mention..."one" and "bull" and "lakota" is almost too broad because of the "one."
Caro7200 (
talk)
21:13, 24 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep and request the nominator amend the nomination statement's serious error in confusing two significant Native American people. Put a strikethrough and italics or bold with the correction or something. Sitting Bull and Crazy Horse are NOT the same person. Please pace your nominations so you don't get confused again.
DiamondRemley39 (
talk)
00:41, 28 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Merge with redirect to
Sitting Bull - like Sitting Bull's other sons that are also at AFD, this one is just not notable in his own right. Every source put forward so far is about Sitting Bull. Consequently, nearly every sentence in our article is actually about Sitting Bull not One Bull. As with
Crow Foot, the only thing we know about
One Bull is that he was
Sitting Bull's son, and that's all he was known for; that's not notability. The reader will be better served reading what little we know about One Bull in an article about his father.
Lev!vich20:42, 1 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Nope. This article says things about One Bull. The sources say even more. Regarding those sources, the comment about them all being about Sitting Bull is neither accurate nor relevant. Consider
1 and
2 are about One Bull, and just because a source covers Sitting Bull more than One Bull doesn't mean it won't work for the purposes of an article about the latter.
DiamondRemley39 (
talk)
20:55, 1 October 2020 (UTC)reply
No. 1 is a local paper covering an election and says "Sitting Bull's Son a Candidate" in the subheadline. Doesn't contribute much to notability and very little to content about the subject. No. 2 is One Bull being interviewed about Sitting Bull. Neither satisfy GNG's requirement for in-depth coverage of the article subject in my view.
Lev!vich21:10, 1 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.
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. There is little support for outright deletion and consensus that the content is notable. A merge (which support for is in the minority) can still be discussed.
Eddie891TalkWork21:39, 1 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment - It seems almost an impossible task without actually looking through a healthy percentage of the hundreds of books about Sitting Bull (not Crazy Horse) and the Lakota...every mention may only be a trivial mention..."one" and "bull" and "lakota" is almost too broad because of the "one."
Caro7200 (
talk)
21:13, 24 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep and request the nominator amend the nomination statement's serious error in confusing two significant Native American people. Put a strikethrough and italics or bold with the correction or something. Sitting Bull and Crazy Horse are NOT the same person. Please pace your nominations so you don't get confused again.
DiamondRemley39 (
talk)
00:41, 28 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Merge with redirect to
Sitting Bull - like Sitting Bull's other sons that are also at AFD, this one is just not notable in his own right. Every source put forward so far is about Sitting Bull. Consequently, nearly every sentence in our article is actually about Sitting Bull not One Bull. As with
Crow Foot, the only thing we know about
One Bull is that he was
Sitting Bull's son, and that's all he was known for; that's not notability. The reader will be better served reading what little we know about One Bull in an article about his father.
Lev!vich20:42, 1 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Nope. This article says things about One Bull. The sources say even more. Regarding those sources, the comment about them all being about Sitting Bull is neither accurate nor relevant. Consider
1 and
2 are about One Bull, and just because a source covers Sitting Bull more than One Bull doesn't mean it won't work for the purposes of an article about the latter.
DiamondRemley39 (
talk)
20:55, 1 October 2020 (UTC)reply
No. 1 is a local paper covering an election and says "Sitting Bull's Son a Candidate" in the subheadline. Doesn't contribute much to notability and very little to content about the subject. No. 2 is One Bull being interviewed about Sitting Bull. Neither satisfy GNG's requirement for in-depth coverage of the article subject in my view.
Lev!vich21:10, 1 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.