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 no consensus. None of the Keep views offer P&G-based rationale, and the page clearly does not qualify for "Speedy keep" under WP:SKCRIT. However, after almost three weeks, there is limited support for deletion, with no consensus likely to materialize by drawing this out any longer. Owen×☎22:50, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The baseless accusations of bad faith and bias have me suspicious, and I also suspect that the keep side is engaged in stealth canvassing and votestacking to try and keep an article that clearly doesn't meet the Wikipedia GNG. OldDiddlyBop (talk) 17:18, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. His books appear to be self-published but that would be ok if there were reliably published reviews of them. I couldn't find any. The sources in the article now include a book review, but of someone else's book and mentioning Ferris only in passing. The only in-depth source that we have is a local-news obituary, appearing to be a family-written obituary rather than a work of independent journalism. That's not enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:33, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you telling me that the book Métis and the Medicine Line: Creating a Border and Dividing a People, with the author listed as Michel Hogue on the cover, is really by Kade Ferris? Because that is the book whose review I was referring to. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:20, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@David Eppstein Right. I clocked that the first time I read your comment, but the second time I read it, I read it the other way. I can add the other book reviews (of his book) and also quote from at least one other book I found. Cielquiparle (talk) 05:26, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I see that the review in American Indian Children's Literature got removed from the article as a source. I am adding it back. While the site itself could be construed as a blog, the reason this particular blog qualifies as a reliable source per WP:BLOGS, is that it is produced by Debbie Reese, who is an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. Cielquiparle (talk) 05:47, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I expanded it to include more about the impact of his tribal history preservation work and the impact that has on reservations, ND and MN educational standards and added information about his mapping skills. oncamera (talk page)08:59, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
His written work as an author and oral traditions that he embedded within his maps, blogs, and recorded videos for the state of North Dakota established notability. He was a respected tribal historian and elder knowledge keeper and professional work reflects that. oncamera (talk page)21:07, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article has now been puffed up with some 30 footnotes, most of which do not seem to be the sort of in-depth independent and reliably-published coverage of the subject that could be used to pass WP:GNG. Of the ones that actually mention Ferris or his works in their title, "Kade Ferris's Gift" is an interview (not usually counted as independent), the Red Lake Nation News obituary reads like a family-written obituary (not independent), the Mendoza book review is in a blog (not reliably published), Teachings of Our Elders is by him not about him, and Archaeologist presents has no depth of coverage of Ferris. Perhaps, per WP:THREE, advocates of keeping the article could save us the effort of similarly evaluating all 30 of the footnotes and point us to three sources that are actually in-depth, independent, and reliably-published? I'm looking for a small number of high-quality sources, at most three, not many low-quality sources. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:16, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Joe Roe, thanks for asking. I'd say that these sources are strong: 1) Obit from the Indigenous news press, BobaaMaajimowinan (Telling of the News in Different Places)Red Lake Nation News[1]; 2) Obit in the peer-reviewed academic journal, Minnesota History (can be read on JSTOR via WP:LIB) [2]; 3) The Extra, a newspaper covering Red River Valley, eastern North Dakota and northwestern Minnesota areas, on Ferris' book on Charles Bender [3]; 4) The Indigenous radio program, Minnesota Native News on Ferris' contributions to children's literature [4]; 5) Voice of America[5]; 6) Book review in American Indians in Children's Literature (which unfortunately is published thru blogspot, so it may not count since it's a blog) [6]; among others....please have a look at the improved article along with the current sourcing when you find a moment (sorry I don't have the time right now to list more). However there is less coverage but still solidly sourced: 3-minute PBS (Arizona) discussion with Ferris re: Indigenous reconciliation and cultural healing. The book review on Hogue's book on the Métis includes a quote Ferris as an expert on Métis culture. Some of the other sources are primary sources, such as press releases, or Indigenous human rights and environmental justice publications where he is called up on as an expert, for example this [7] from the Minnesota government's website. To my way of thinking he is clearly notable, and especially so in Indigenous Native American communities as an important leader and thinker, which is just as important as "mainstream American" culture. Netherzone (talk) 17:44, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. This article was already extremely well cited, but I added an infobox and a little bit more. His notability stems from his tribal historic preservation work which is interdisciplinary (history, anthropology, archaeology, policy making, language advocacy, etc.) Yuchitown (talk) 16:34, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please address the discussion above about lack of high-quality sourcing, rather than merely asserting that "This article was already extremely well cited" when clearly it isn't? It has many sources but that misses the point. We need a small number of high-quality sources, and continuing to add larger numbers of low-quality sources only makes notability harder to discern by hiding the good sources in a big pile of dross. It would be better to remove both the low-quality sources and the material sourced to them so that we can focus on the essentials. The sources you added (his own dissertation and a web page about someone else that mentions him in passing) do not contribute to notability according to Wikipedia's standards for notability, which are not based on the work the subject might have done but rather on the depth of coverage of the subject in sources that are independent of him and meet Wikipedia's standards for reliable publication. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:55, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't appreciate the suggestion that tribal newspapers are "low-quality sources." Like I wrote, his notability is based on being a THPO, so it's interdisciplinary. He was not just a writer. While several pieces (Red Lake Nation News, Minnesota Native News) focus on him specifically, even if these didn't exist, Wikipedia:Notability (people) states: If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability. He has contributed "part of the enduring historical record" of the Métis people. Yuchitown (talk) 02:06, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tribal newspapers are as reliable as any other newspaper. But when a local newspaper (tribal or not) runs an obituary that reads like the sort of obituary written by a family member to announce a death, rather than the kind of obituary that major newspapers write themselves when famous people die, it doesn't count much towards notability. For one thing, if it is indeed written by family, it is not an independent source. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:06, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
.... even if these didn't exist, Wikipedia:Notability (people) states: "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability". He has contributed "part of the enduring historical record" of the Métis people. Yuchitown (talk) 13:55, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So much a part of the enduring historical record that the only Wikilink to him from any other article is a an unsourced sentence about him in an article about a village in Lebanon, stating that he is also of Lebanese descent, something that appears nowhere in the Kade Ferris article itself? —David Eppstein (talk) 19:10, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If that's an issue to you, you can help expand topics on Turtle Mountain, the Ojibwe or Metis history and credit/wikilink his article from those edits. Wikipedia needs more editors in that area. oncamera (talk page)10:27, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I definitely think the Métis have an interesting history that deserves to be better-known, but I have no special expertise in that area, and I have even less knowledge of Turtle Mountain or the Ojibwe.
Incidentally, I can find no evidence that Kade Ferris had any connection to Lebanon, outside of a few unreliable web sources. I have removed the link to him from the Lebanese village article. His mother was from Minnesota and his father was originally from the Turtle Mountain Reservation. I suspect his father, Albert Ferris, may have some notability as an artist. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:14, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I just came across this AfD and don't entirely feel experienced enough with guidelines to vote either way, but I'd like to note that Ferris' work on map decolonization and geographic technologies (as THPO for the Red Lake Nation) was significant enough that he gave a full-fledged presentation at the Council for Minnesota Archaeology's 2023 annual conference, entitled "Creating a Virtual Database for Regional Tribal Resource Management and Consultation". I don't know if, for example, a program (with an abstract of his talk) from the conference (the most important one on Minnesota archaeology, as far as I know) would count towards GNG, but I do have such a document if uploading it somewhere could prove useful. Thanks. SunTunnels (talk) 21:41, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that giving a lecture or presentation at a conference is a stand-out event. Doing that is an ordinary part of an academic's job. The only exceptions would be instances where being selected to give the lecture is itself a high honor, like when a national academic society invites someone to do the Annual So-and-so Memorial Lecture. That can be an indication that the field regards the person's work as particularly important. XOR'easter (talk) 21:02, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Please address the question of notability per cited sources. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen×☎15:52, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
False. There are still zero WP:GNG-contributing sources: sources that provide in-depth content about Ferris, are written independently of their subjects, and are reliably published. None of the previous keep comments have even attempted to address those requirements of GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:59, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Kade Ferris was a distinguished archaeologist, anthropologist and historian, one of the first Indigenous archaeologists in the U.S. I've made some improvements, including adding a book review and an obit in an academic journal. He clearly meets criterion #2 of WP:ANYBIO, WP:BASIC and also nows meet GNG. As an aside, I find it really quite odd that the nominator would assume that It seems this page was made by friends of the article's subject especially given the fact that such a new editor, with only 40 total edits (the majority of which were to the article or this AfD) would make such a comment. I guess I'm also a little curious how they learned by their 20th edit how to produce an AfD so quickly. Nominator, do you yourself have a connection to the subject of the article and why would you make such a statement? Netherzone (talk) 17:50, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are tutorials on how to nominate discussions for AfD. I simply read them and the Wikipedia GNG in full. I also do think the keep side is possibly engaging in stealth canvassing to try and votestack to keep a article that clearly fails the GNG. The baseless accusations of bias have me suspicious. OldDiddlyBop (talk) 17:11, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Adding "Strong" in front of your !vote, or casting aspersions at the nom, will not give your view more weight. Highlighting sources that provide WP:SIGCOV will. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen×☎19:27, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. An obituary in a history journal and status as one of the first indigenous archaeologists are compelling. Good articles like this go a long way toward correcting long-standing biases on Wikipedia. 172.9.46.64 (talk) 02:11, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What biases are you referring to? Are you implying that this is bias instead of this figure not meeting notability guidelines? Do you have any evidence of bias or is this a baseless accusation? This article was not nominated for deletion in bad faith. OldDiddlyBop (talk) 21:52, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There has been discussions on here and elsewhere in response to a scholarly paper written about the bias against topics about Indigenous people and history. Wikipedia Signpost. And Netherzone did bring up questions about how this account with limited edits would know how to nominate for deletion which was not addressed by the OP. oncamera (talk page)22:29, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, there is one "delete" vote and three "keep" votes plus one "leaning keep." The article has been vastly improved since nomination. This conversation has dragged on for more than two weeks now. Yuchitown (talk) 01:52, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How much canvassing was done to try and prevent this article which clearly fails the Wikipedia GNG from being deleted was done I wonder? Not one person who voted "keep" has explained how Ferris's article meets the GNG, which it does not. OldDiddlyBop (talk) 16:55, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have addressed his concerns just now. I have read the Wikipedia GNG, the AfD tutorial, and the section about stealth canvassing on Wikipedia, something I suspect is going on here with the keep side. The baseless accusations of bias and bad faith have me suspicious, and no one can tell me how the article meets the GNG. It seems to fall back on my edit count, which has nothing to do with the AfD discussion at hand. OldDiddlyBop (talk) 17:15, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I never interacted with, knew, or worked for Ferris, but for a brief period I watched some of his work from afar. The history journal obit that IP 172.9.46.64 linked to is in my opinion good evidence of what I anecdotally have observed, which is that Ferris did some groundbreaking work that was recognized by his archaeologist and historian peers. Unfortunately for his Wikipedia article, Ferris also worked in an often-overlooked discipline (tribal historic preservation) that doesn't frequently make it into the kind of secondary sources that Wikipedia values for notability purposes. I think a good chunk of that is due to broader systemic biases, absolutely, but I suppose that's not what we're discussing here. Wikipedia's notability standards are likely different from what we as individuals may think makes a person notable. Even so, I think the journal Minnesota History writing "Kade was one of the first THPOs and native archaeologists in the country [....] His dedication to the work in the fields of history, archaeology, and tribal preservation led to his assistance in the development of many THPOs across the region" demonstrates notability by Wikipedia's standards. I can absolutely see how others may disagree, however. SunTunnels (talk) 16:07, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems you agree the article doesn't meet the Wikipedia GNG. There are no systemic biases here. This article was nominated for deletion because it doesn't meet the GNG. Also I wonder how much stealth canvassing was going on to try and keep this article, since baseless accusations of bad faith deletion discussion and bias keep getting brought up. If there were bias why would I point out that Chief Bender clearly meets the GNG while Ferris does not? OldDiddlyBop (talk) 17:05, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. The last two sentences of my Keep post clearly state that I believe Ferris meets notability standards, in this case GNG. I believe, given what I understand about WP:GNG, that (for example) the Minnesota History obit presents non-trivial coverage of Ferris by a reliable source (MNHS's historical journal) independent from Ferris himself. That is my stated position for the moment and I'm happy to engage in further discussion around that.
Let me be clear in saying I do not believe you are personally biased in nominating Ferris' article here; I think you're just trying to improve Wikipedia in ways you believe are constructive, and I respect that. When I talk about systemic bias, I am referring to the very real issues Wikipedia broadly has in discussing and incorporating indigenous knowledge and indigenous history; see [8], or [9], or [10] for more. The way society at large treats indigenous knowledge, and the way it does or doesn't spotlight indigenous leaders and thinkers, is a real issue that I believe Wikipedia needs to grapple with at some point. But that's somewhat irrelevant to the specifics of this case; I just think it's good to be aware of, since it can affect how people like Ferris are written about in the kinds of sources Wikipedia values.
If you believe Ferris fails GNG, that is perfectly understandable and you are welcome to make your case for that viewpoint — indeed you have here done so, although I'm not certain that writing seven different comments on this AfD page within the span of an hour is the best way to go about it. But that's just my two cents. As for your suggestions that stealth canvassing is taking place, I'd appreciate it if you could either substantiate such claims or refrain from making them. I can only speak for myself, but I found this discussion while I was Googling Kade Ferris for unrelated reasons and came across his Wikipedia article. I have not communicated with any other Wikiuser off-wiki about this Ferris discussion, and you can check for yourself that my talk page doesn't have any Ferris-related content (as of when I wrote this reply). Cheers. SunTunnels (talk) 18:58, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. The article has clearly been improved since it was nominated and I'm suprised it hasn't been closed yet. I can't really fathom any reason to delete it now that it has a massive number of sources and clearly meets GNG.
How has it been improved? How does Ferris have lasting notability and meet the Wikipedia GNG? BTW I do suspect there might be a little canvassing going on to try and keep this article. OldDiddlyBop (talk) 16:47, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@OldDiddlyBop, How has it been improved you ask...... This is the state of the article when you nominated it for deletion: [11] - it was a short stub; and this is the state of the article now: Kade Ferris, which Rater Tool assesses at a "B" class. There is a very significant difference, and many reliable sources added in addition to the expansion of content. I'm not sure what you are looking at but it seems quite evident that the Heymann Standard clearly applies. WP:HEY. Read the sources in the current article to understand how he meets GNG, which cover more than five years.
Also, OldDiddly Bop, you never answered the question why you think this article was "made by friends of the article's subject" that kind of a claim would need to be backed up with diffs or evidence. And also please add diffs as to why you think there is canvassing going on. And why you think Votestacking is taking place. Please kindly respond to these inquiries and present evidence. Netherzone (talk) 17:50, 23 July 2024 (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.