Deletion of Native Americans and hot springs

Comment: as per nom. This is  and also way too broad : like saying "Eurasians have a long history with hot springs" or an article titled "Asians and boating" - there are ignore important differences between different parts of the continent. @Authors of the article: you're very welcome to write individual articles like "Hot springs in Nez Perce culture", if there is enough  material to warrant an article. —&nbsp;Preceding Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned comment added by
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTH||WP:RS)

Comment: WP:SYNTH, agree with merging parts of this article to individual articles. '''Comment''' - I am leaning towards /delete, but will wait a bit before !voting. The article is centered on 4 examples in the U.S. and does not mention indigenous peoples, nor hot springs in Canada, Mexico or Central America.  It is written in the past tense, as though Native peoples are not living cultures. It is simultaneously too general and too specific. It over-generalizes NA’s, and does not convey the diversity and differences between peoples. It is too specific as only 4 springs are given as examples, yet there are over 1,600 in existence in the US alone? A lot of the New Age-y wording has now been removed, thankfully. {{u|Andrew Davidson}} provided an excellent source that critiques the fallacy that Native peoples “feared the geyser regions as inhabited by evil spirits”. I’ve added that source to the Further reading section
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over (WP:TNT)

Comment: The nomination's talk of appropriation is ironic because it proposes to re-use this content elsewhere and then delete the edit history, so denying the authors their proper attribution.  It says that there are just four springs but the page does not yet include the Yellowstone area.  This https://www.jstor.org/stable/43598916?seq=1 paper, for example, explains that when that land was appropriated by the US government, it was the subject of myth-making to cover-up the native history and so make the place seems newly discovered and safe.  We should preserve a full history of this matter per our policy 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Editing policy (WP:PRESERVE)

Comment: I don't think  applies, because the article is essentially a recreation of the Lund article, which is from a peer reviewed publication, and not an original synthesis of multiple sources. I agree there are issues with presenting this topic as is. I have placed a note on some relevant wikiproject pages related to First Peoples. I request that we re-list this for another round, to allow for time for editors who work in this area to comment or perhaps rescue or suggest a merge target for this article
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTH)