Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ah-ni-ku-ta-ni

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 of the debate was keep. Neutrality^talk 18:19, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. As the sole author, I want this content removed as I do not wish a site that allows lynch mobs and libel and defacement of information to act as a repository for our culture. There's no guarantee that our information will not be defaced by anonymous internet users. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gadugi (talk • contribs) 03:12, 19 September 2005

• Keep this and all other pages Gadugi has nominated. Contributions must not be redacted. Ashibaka (tock) 04:58, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • You need to repeat this comment on all the six pages, since the closing admin will look at them separately. --cesarb 05:08, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Several users have edited this article so it doesn't qualify for speedy deletion by the sole contributor. if the article is factual, as I presume it to be, it should remain. DES ^(talk) 05:27, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This article is very interesting and could be a great resource for anyone wishing to learn more about the Cherokee culture. --Icarus 05:30, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• This is All You are Getting. I am NOT going to describe or relate the ancient syllabary on this forum or any other forum at this point. Our ancient writings will remain secret at this point. You are wasting your time -- this is all you are going to get from me. Do-na-da Go-hv-i Ni-go Di-sge-s-di Gadugi 05:35, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • When did anyone say they wanted you to describe or relate anything more than you've already freely offered? --Icarus 06:09, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good point. Is this one of the vitriolic comments I am so used to from admins on this site? 67.177.35.211 06:30, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • No vitriol is intended. Your choice of words made it sound like you were angry, so I pointed out that there's no need for you to get upset over a request that no one's made. --Icarus 06:40, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • In any case, to the verifiability requirement, Wikipedia does not publish secrets; that is, Wikipedia cannot be used for the first publication of information that was previously secret. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:50, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • I believe this problem has been solved as the Ah-ni-yv-wi-ya has directed that the ancient syllabary will not be published anywhere except among our people until the prophecies have been fulfilled. Gadugi 21:42, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep verifiable information about Cherokee culture. Capitalistroadster 05:43, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per DES. Penelope D 06:00, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep; no valid criteria for deletion. -- MCB 06:11, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Pleased; I am pleased. This was indeed a great article. 67.177.35.211 06:31, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - A good article. Hopefuly someone else will be interested in expanding it. -- Friedo 07:19, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• User Gadugi, we try not to allow libel or lynch mobs or such problems. Where they happen, you can help us better by reverting the bad changes to restore a previous correct version, and by alerting us at the "Vandalism in progress" page. Welcome, and peace. Barno 08:12, 19 September 2005 (UTC), friend to a former WIC nutritionist to the Northern Cheyenne reservation.[reply]
• Keep: subject to cleanup and wikification, this looks like a good article. The impression given from this and other nominations is of a user suffering a hissy-fit because of some perceived slight. However, the information has now been released to Wikipedia under the GFDL which is AFAIK irrevocable. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 09:54, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Question for Capitalistroadster and others - can anyone verify this information from a printed source? I'm amazed to find nothing online about this ancient syllabary. User:Gadugi's talk page makes interesting reading and his veracity has been challenged. There are no records of an "Ah-ni-ku-ta-ni" online (according to Google) and a couple of the user's other edits have been challenged. It's possible that this request for deletion owes something to a wish to avoid being caught out. There are credited sources for each article - can anyone find them offline to confirm? Please note that in the absence of independent corroboration I do not have an opinion one way or another on either Gadugi or the facts of this article.Vizjim 10:06, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Vizjim, I have checked the ISBN for the book Cherokee cited in the references and Redlightgreen appears to indicate it is a legitimate book. That being said, I am in Australia and will have difficulty in accessing this book within the timeframe. It would be good if someone in the US could check out this and other sources to confirm that this is a verifiable article about a notable topic. Capitalistroadster 10:53, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • this amazon link shows that the book is real, and does have an index entry for the relevant subject. However, that page is not available online via amazon. DES ^(talk) 11:07, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Great research!! (Now why didn't I think of that?) The entry there spells it as "Ani-kutani" and that throws up 461 hits on Google. With that in mind, I'd redirect to Ani-kutani and keep the article.Vizjim 11:19, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've been bold and moved it. Great research, all around. -- Plutor 13:22, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • The problem is, in the process, you have broken the AfD link. Normally articels on Afd are not supposed to be moved for thsi very reason. I would advise that you either move it back or fix the link. DES ^(talk) 13:34, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Here's a little more. Searching www.a9.com and selecting "books" (which is about the same as Amazon's "search inside this book") can be useful. The page in question is this but it really only confirms the existence of the "Ani-kutani priesthood." If that link doesn't work due to Amazon's protection against a single user reading too much, go to the book description in Amazon and do a "search inside this book" for "priesthood." Dpbsmith (talk) 22:47, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • My local library has the book Cherokee (I live within the Cherokee Nation boundries). I will get it this afternoon and see how much of this article I can verify. Dsmdgold 16:54, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. No valid criteria for deletion. TheMadBaron 11:04, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep. Bad-faith nomination, WP:POINT, etc. etc. Bhumiya/Talk 12:50, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, notable subject. Whether it's factually accurate or not is not a matter for AfD. -- Plutor 13:22, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - come on, Gadugi, If this is true then it is very important information and should not be covered up. I have had a similar problem with someone else covering up information I added about the ancient Micmac writing script; see Talk:Mi'kmaq hieroglyphic writing... Codex Sinaiticus 16:03, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. No valid criteria for nomination. Wikipedia has no concept of an author owning and article, and every edit page says clearly "If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, do not submit it." Where did Gadugi see any "guarantee," express or implied, that contributions would never be defaced? Dpbsmith (talk) 22:39, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep. WP:POINT. User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:38, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• phandsvrta keep. Notable Subject : Googling "+written cherokee language" reveals the syllabary, at least the 1820s Sequoyah syllabary, which isn't that ancient. It also reveals a lot of good, learned material on this topic which deserves collation in Wikipedia. Merkey (aka Gadugi) is attempting to suppress already freely available information. Don't allow it.
  • note that Gadugi has stated that the "ancient syllabary" is much older than, and compeltely different from the syllabary created by Sequoyah. DES ^(talk) 15:37, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• phandsvrta keep There's more, from http://www.neosoft.com/powersource/gallery/people/sequoyah.html

This includes a picture of the syllabary. I'd have pasted it in, but don't know how to use wikipedia for an image yet, and I'm not sure of the copyright status of the source.

• Speedy Keep I regret my actions here. Please keep this article. Also, Phandsvrta is an SCOX member who has been extremely vocal. Since he does not know anything about our Culture or language, I ask the other editors to heavily scrutinze any edits or defacements he makes to this article. Gadugi 18:37, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• phandsvrta response

I will second Jeff's sentiment to scrutinize all contributions - mine or otherwise. I have indeed been vocal, and will continue being vocal as long as attempts are made to suppress freedom of information and speech. And, as far as I know, I haven't made any defacements to this article (I'm not adept at using wikipedia, so don't rule out ignorance or finger trouble!).

Jeff, if there is an older syllabary than that of Sequoyah, why isn't it visible elsewhere? There is a LOT of Cherokee information out there, but all references to a written language only get as far as Sequoyah. Surely you woudn't want something as fundamental and precious to wither away in obscurity?

Think of it as adding to the richness found in other, old languages, such as Norn (the ancient language of Orkney), or Ogham (pre-Gaelic Irish), or Kernewek (the direct descendant of the ancient language spoken by Celtic settlers who inhabited Cornwall (Kernow) and most of the British Isles long before the Roman conquest). Many of these were suppressed by later conquerors, and only survived underground. They are now being resurrected and appreciated for their historical and cultural value. I'd want the same for a previously unkown Cherokee written form.

Wouldn't you want to know how to read the Inca Quipus (spelling?)?

I speak as a Scot, living in Ireland. Our native Gaelic was brutally suppressed by the English, only surviving in the Western Isles, including Ireland. As language powerfully shapes a culture, losing languages is, in my opinion, a very bad thing.

• Keep - and I suppose one of us great [google/A9] researchers could pick up a phone and call the An-ni-yv-wi-ya Religious organization at the number provided in the references section for more verification. Dystopos 16:12, 22 September 2005 (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.