Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Social science

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Social science. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
  1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary, it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Social science|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
Note that there are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Social science.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.


Relevant archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Social science/archive.
Purge page cache watch

This list includes sublists of deletion debates on articles related to language and history.

See also: Science-related deletions and Medicine-related deletions.

Social science

Psychoanalysis and Politics

Psychoanalysis and Politics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Psychoanalysis and Politics" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Article on a conference series which does not appear to be at all significant. No independent sources, and the sole author appears to be an associate of the organiser (who also wrote the article on her). Guy (Help!) 08:46, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:59, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:59, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete: This conference appears unrelated to the similarly-named French feminist movement of the 1970s. The provided sources, including the Journal of Psycho-Social Studies interview, are close to WP:PRIMARY; the reprint of several papers from one conference in one issue of Psychoanalysis, Culture & Society may be the most considerable for notability, but this is not uncommon and does not I think provide the significant coverage necessary to establish encyclopaedic notability for the conference series itself. AllyD (talk) 10:06, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete Not particularly notable academic conference series. Famousdog (c) 10:22, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Geniusology

Geniusology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Geniusology" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

A neologism coined by Andrei Aleinikov, article author has no history other than writing about and linking to the work of Aleinikov. Most of the sources for the article are Andrei Aleinikov, some are "independent" in the sense that directories you pay to be in are "independent". Overall,this looks like a transparent attempt to promulgate a neologism. Guy (Help!) 23:11, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:29, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Inter University Consortium for the Promotion of Social Sciences Arts and Humanities

Inter University Consortium for the Promotion of Social Sciences Arts and Humanities (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Inter University Consortium for the Promotion of Social Sciences Arts and Humanities" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

We don't cover such topics which have no coverage in WP:RS. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 18:36, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:43, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:43, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:43, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:44, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Transformation of culture

Transformation of culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Transformation of culture" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

I hope I'm not breaking any rules with this nomination. Last time, we ended up with a no-consensus closure on account of an active merge discussion for this article and Culture Change. However, it seems that it's been decided the content of the articles are too different for salvaged pieces of this one to got into the other one. This article is pretty deep into essay territory and I think it would be easier to delete it and start over than try to fix it. TheDracologist (talk) 02:08, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:27, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:27, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:27, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Western guilt (concept)

Western guilt (concept) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Western guilt" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

I strongly urge editors to read this discussion before voting. This is not a simple case of quickly voting "per sources, per GNG". The comments by Pincrete and Malik Shabazz summarized most of the issues with this essay (not an encyclopedic article) better than I could. In particular, I recommend these comments by Pincrete which help explain some of the most blatant forms of synth and original research I have seen. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought; what we have here is not a notable concept but rather a crude selection of quotes that sometimes (surprisingly not always) happen to use "western" and "guilt" with no indication that they are related to one another. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:46, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:32, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:32, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:32, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. There may be a notable encyclopaedic topic lurking here in the form of postcolonial guilt. Some of the references might also be salvaged for white guilt. But in its current form, this article consists entirely of politically-slanted original synthesis that needs to be blown up and started over. E.M.Gregory's approach to sourcing clearly leaves a lot to be desired―there's a lot of keyword-search cherry picking, misrepresentation of what the sources say, and poor citation practices (e.g. broken links, unnecessary links to paywalls, citations to books without page references) that make verification difficult―but he is often successful in producing a veneer of thorough research that passes a casual inspection. I'd therefore second TheGracefulSlick in urging editors to look closely at what the references actually say, and read the discussions on the talk page, before !voting. – Joe (talk) 12:34, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
  • What personal attack has Joe Roe supposedly flung at you? You consistently engage in poor citation practices and he is merely bringing it to this discussion because this is arguably your worst case yet.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:20, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry if I've offended you E.M.Gregory, but I think at this point I am far from the only person who has noticed the irregularities in your use of sources. I stopped short of giving diffs because I thought that it would be taken as combative and distract from the issue at hand, but if I'm not mistaken there has been more than one ANI thread about it. In any case, I am only giving it as a reason for !voters to take a close look at the sources, which surely can't be a bad thing. – Joe (talk) 00:47, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup, and the way to resolve a content dispute (which is what we have here) is not deleting the article. The concept itself - is clearly notable - it is the subject of books and journal papers - so clearly Wikipedia should have an entry on this political/cultural concept. As for the article quality - including alleged SYNTH and OR - this should be addressed by editing the article. If need be - this article could be stubbed down to a five line paragraph explaining the concept (without a long list of examples) without difficulty.Icewhiz (talk) 13:03, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
    • If, as you assert, Icewhiz, the concept is the subject of books and journal papers, I have two questions. First, why is not a single one of those books or journal article cited as a source in the article or recommended as further reading? Second, could you please identify a few of those books and journal articles for me, because I'm too stupid to find them. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:59, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
      The epithet you chose does not describe you at all. Some sources:
      [1] Equality, the Third World, and Economic Delusion, Peter T. Bauer, 1981
      Bauer, Péter Tamás. "Western guilt and Third World poverty." Commentary 61.1 (1976): 31.
      Sanneh, Lamin. "Christian missions and the Western guilt complex." The Christian Century 104.11 (1987): 330-334.
      Leys, Ruth. From guilt to shame: Auschwitz and after. Princeton University Press, 2009.
      Diamond, Larry. "The democratic rollback: the resurgence of the predatory state." Foreign affairs (2008): 36-48.
      Akinade, Akintunde E. "The precarious agenda: Christian-Muslim relations in contemporary Nigeria." Journal of Islam and Christian Muslim Relations (2002).
      Ajami, Fouad. "The Global Logic of the Neoconservatives." World Politics 30.3 (1978): 450-468.
      [2] The Control Factor: Our Struggle to See the True Threat, Bill Siegel
      [3] Western Christians in Global Mission: What's the Role of the North American, Paul Borthwick.
      [4] From Subsistence to Exchange and Other Essays, by Lord Peter Tamas Bauer
      [5] Writing Anthropology: A Call for Uninhibited Methods, F. Bouchetoux
      [6] War, Guilt, and World Politics after World War II, Thomas U. Berger.
      And of course google-news shows contemporary usage of this term in this context by many different people.Icewhiz (talk) 07:25, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
That the term is sometimes used is not disputed, but is it used in a coherent way, such that it has a defined, or definable meaning? The 3 or 4 sources above which I looked at, had no more than passing mentions, which never defined the term. Nor is it clear that the various users are using the term in the manner defined in the article. For example, the brief mention in the The Christian Century, basically says Christian missions should feel "western guilt" for past presumptiousness and cultural arrogance, but should nonetheless continue to "spread the gospel". Does this bear any relationship whatsoever to the definition and examples in our article? This example sounds to me like typical christian contrition, (let's repent and do better) and to have nothing to do with a political concept. Pincrete (talk) 20:52, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm very disappointed, Icewhiz. That's a classic bait and switch. You wrote that "Western guilt" "is the subject of books and journal papers", but you haven't identified a single book or peer-reviewed academic journal paper about "Western guilt". (Commentary and The Christian Century are not journals by any stretch of the imagination.) Instead, you provided books, magazine articles, and journal papers that mention the phrase "Western guilt". That demonstrates that the concept is not notable. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:00, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
I apologize I do not live up to your lofty expectations, but I wouldn't call the long tracts by lord Peter Thomas Bauer (e.g. chapter 6 of [7] which is a 2000 Princeton University Press reprint of the 1976 commentary magazine piece (which is, actually, cited by quite a bit)) - a mention. By extension, your characterization of some of the others sources is not comprehensive.Icewhiz (talk) 08:57, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep A patently notable topic, which is why I created the article. No SYNTH required. Clear and congruent definitions of "western guilt" by Richard Wolin, Pascal Bruckner, Douglas Murray, Shelby Steele, and Sohrab Ahmari are already on the page. If editors want to argue that these definitions are not properly summarized in the lede, that discussion belongs on the talk page. However, Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup and Wikipedia:I just don't like it is not a valid argument for deletion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:48, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Note - I never nominated this essay for deletion for cleanup or because I don't like it. Those are straw man arguments. If any of the keep !voters cared to read it, my nom statement asserts this essay falls under what Wikipedia is not. Gregory created this personal essay by synthing together sources that sometimes use the term for different meaning and misrepresented others to push a POV. There is no established term known as "Western guilt" except in the mind of the essay's creator.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:24, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
    You both really should address content, not each other. Even if all you are saying about this article is true - the subject itself would still merit an article as it is clearly notable. It would be trivial to stub this down to a form that is not contestable.Icewhiz (talk) 22:35, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete If the term exists in any coherent form, it is clearly as a pejorative term used to denigrate the motives of those one disagrees with, rather than an objective phenomenon. I am not persuaded that it does have a commonly understood meaning, even in that limited pejorative sense. The article is simply a ragbag of uses, occasionally of the term, more often of related terms like "post-colonial guilt" which have been synthed together. Needless to say, none of the uses ever say "this is bunkum, the entirety of western liberal thinking and policies are NOT motivated by 'guilt' anymore than all conservative policies are motivated by racism and avarice". Pincrete (talk) 22:54, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete Performing a web search on a phrase and quoting the single occurrence of that phrase in a dozen books and articles is not a sound basis for an encyclopedia article. There has been no significant coverage of the concept of "Western guilt", which is why the subject fails the notability requirements. I recommend that editors read WP:NEO:

    Some neologisms can be in frequent use, and it may be possible to pull together many facts about a particular term and show evidence of its usage on the Internet or in larger society. To support an article about a particular term or concept, we must cite what reliable secondary sources say about the term or concept, not just sources that use the term (see use–mention distinction). An editor's personal observations and research (e.g. finding blogs, books, and articles that use the term rather than are about the term) are insufficient to support articles on neologisms because this may require analysis and synthesis of primary source material to advance a position, which is explicitly prohibited by the original research policy.

    Unfortunately, this is a compilation of sources that use the term "Western guilt" without a single source about "Western guilt". — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:59, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. The editor is an avid writer, who researches his material very well. His work is of great importance to this venue, IMHO. Naturally, whenever one conceives of an idea for a valid entry in this online encyclopedia, the first thing that he does is research the topic, perusing through the available sources that treat on the topic, and brings this information together by putting it into a readable form. There's nothing amiss in doing so. The sources cited are good; the subject-matter under discussion notable.Davidbena (talk) 03:13, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Davidbena I'm an avid writer too but I wouldn't use that as an excuse to create my own concept for an encyclopedic article. Can you explain what you meant by your comment? There is no established phenomenon called "Western guilt"; Wikipedia is not a publisher of personal essays. The sources were brought together by synth and misrepresentation. As I recommended in my nom statement, I strongly urge you to review the sources and the talk page discussion. The synth and OR is too blatant to ignore.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:47, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
"Shame" culture and "Guilt" culture were articulated by Dodds (1951). Discussing ancient Greek epics and drama, he traced an increasing sophistication in their development, from a conception of the world and the moral order as arbitrary and subject to the whim of the gods, through to a later understanding of the limits of moral responsibility. You may also wish to see JSTOR on this subject. Better still, check the search engine for its notability. Our co-editor apparently only wished to discuss one aspect of this "guilt" culture, namely, that found in western societies. It's legitimate.Davidbena (talk) 05:09, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
So any 'collective sense of guilt' found in, (or perceived by others to be 'found in') western societies, is, by definition 'Western guilt' is it? Regardless of cause? Jewish survivor guilt? People who feel UK and Europe should have done more in the 1930's to stop Nazism? German guilt over WWII? US citizens who don't feel good about the Vietnam war or UK citizens who are not proud of Bloody Sunday? Who decides what's in and what's out, because the sources don't seem to agree that this is a single defined, or definable entity. Pincrete (talk) 21:37, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete this is an essay comprised of original research, not an encyclopedic article. Lepricavark (talk) 06:07, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  • keep - icludes books as sources. meets wp:gng XavierItzm (talk) 12:49, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:44, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
  • delete per TNT would need to be completely written to comply with NPOV and SOAP. From a policy perspective, what is wrong with this page is that it is completely and narrowly POV. It treats the notion of "western guilt" from a single perspective that "Western guilt" is some self-flagellating and self-destructive notion that exists only in the minds (and cultural products of minds) of left wingers in the West. The sources were cherry-picked to accomplish this, so of course that is all it does. There is almost nothing here about the actual substrate of racist/sexist/colonial/postcolonial abuse that is the basis for the "guilt", and actually nothing from the POV of objects of "the West"'s actions (where is for example the voice of people like Frantz Fanon in this "article"?) There is almost no POV from people in "the West" and in the ROW who seek constructive ways of engagement that acknowledge the past and don't abnegate it.
What is driving people to call this an "essay" and to discuss SYN is the stringing-together of a narrow range of sources to generate this POV content. This is useless to anybody trying to think about the whole of "western guilt" (including the POV here). This has no place in WP as it stands.
It is as wrong-headed from stem to stern as many of the pages created by that Environmental Justice class we had to deal with last spring, that came here with a resolutely anti-Trump "message" to sell. We ended up deleting a bunch of them as well. Jytdog (talk) 21:56, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
As it stands, it is really a kind of POV fork of White privilege, Male privilege, Colonialism, Postcolonialism, etc all wrapped up in one POV package. Like I said, would need to be completely rewritten to be dialogue with the rest of WP instead of sticking out like a sore thumb. Jytdog (talk) 00:45, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Certainly the article can be improved, but Note that there is a great deal of serious scholarship cited in the article, and more can be added.
For example, Imperialism, Marxism and the Western Sense of Guilt, a subsection in Philosophy, politics and conservatism in the thought of Elie Kedourie, in which political philosopher Noël O'Sullivan unpacks Elie Kedourie's an analysis of the impact of western guilt on decolonization in the post-WWII era. (Kedourie thought empire had some positive aspects, and that nationalism and Marxism were radically dangerous.) He regarded Franz Fanon as representing a "fusion of nationalism and Marxism," But he was very specifically critical not of the fact of the end of empire, but of the fact that the then new phenomenon of western guilt over imperialism led France and Britain to wrap up their Empires in a "hasty and irresponsible" manner that led to bloodshed, economic collapse, and enormous suffering for the colonized peoples (in Algeria and elsewhere) that might have been averted.
The assertion that the concept of Western guilt lacks sources is simply mistaken. Nor can it be subsumed under white guilt; the two concepts intersect, but western guilt is broader, and, often as in O'Sullivan's analysis of Kedourie, about guilt as a driver of colonial and foreign policy.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:07, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Here, for example is a discussion of Frantz Fanon's thought on western guilt (the topic is the exploitation of the bodies of brown and black women and boys,) "According to Fanon, it was not enough to assign guilt to monstrous racism in Europe and North America, it was also necessary to face the shame of bourgeois barbarism in Africa and Asia..." p. 52, Sex Shame and the Single Life," Daniel McNeill, a chapter in American Shame: Stigma and the Body Politic, Myra Mendible, editor, Indiana University Press, 2016.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:10, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
You will note that my !vote did not call into question whether an article could be written on this. It could. This page would have to be completely rewritten to make it encyclopedic, specifically with regard to NPOV and SOAP. As it stands it is an essay that makes an argument that should be called "Why Western Guilt is a Bad Thing" and it should be deleted.
Perhaps you would be willing to draftify it and submit it through AfC when you think you have made it actually something approaching neutral? Perhaps the nominator would then agree to withdraw the nomination. Jytdog (talk) 15:35, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup. Do note that Frantz Fanon and Elie Kedourie - the sources I brought just above - are on opposite sides of this debate. The sources now in the article, distinguished academics with whom you disagree, are valid sources. The topic meets WP:SIGCOV. A content dispute is NOT an argument for deletion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:54, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
No one is saying deletion is cleanup. If you will not comprehend what Jytdog is discussing, that is fine. Wikipedia will be better off without this POV essay.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:51, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
The thing is a pig's ear and we cannot make a purse out if it. This is not like a stub that needs building out. It needs a teardown and rebuild. Jytdog (talk) 22:52, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Also it's far from clear to me that there is significant coverage. What the keep !voters have presented is a disparate collection of sources that use the term in passing (and some that don't use the term at all), and a few works by fringe, conservative authors that cover it as a coherent concept. I think it would be difficult to write an article that conformed to WP:NPOV unless additional, mainstream sources were found. – Joe (talk) 23:15, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Additional sources are myriad and include:
  • Lewis Samuel Feuer, Imperialism and the Anti-Imperialist Mind, Chapter IV: "The Imperialist Spirit and the Anti-Imperialist Mind", subhead "The Ideology of Imperialist Guilt", First section of chapter IV, p, 104 "Western peoples, it has been noted, have been peculiarly susceptible to feelings of guilt concerning their imperialist role. The guilt, it has sometimes been suggested, derives form the Christian myth of guilt and sin..." An entire chapter on imperialism and western guilt ensues. 1989, Routledge.
  • John Hobson, The Eurocentric Conception of World Politics; Western International Theory, 1760-2010 discusses "the West's 'colonial-racism guilt syndrome,' or what has been termed, 'post-imperial cringe.' In turn, the emergence of this syndrome was due in part to a series of intra-Western developments, which comprised the internalist critique of scientific racism within the academy." and more analysis of the "Western-racist imperialist guilt complex." p. 320, Cambridge University Press 2012.
  • Sarah Maddison, Postcolonial guilt and national identity: historical injustice and the Australian settler state, Journal for the Study of Race, Nation and Culture, Volume 18, 2012 - Issue 6
  • Post-colonial guilt has changed how European history is being taught January 2017 Hindustan Times.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:36, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Derrr .... almost none of these refer to 'Western guilt', and when they do, it is merely in passing. None of them tells us what it supposedly is, except of course it's a Very Very BAD thing. As M Shabazz says, these are sources USING the term not ABOUT the term.Pincrete (talk) 09:34, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Here Pincrete concretely insists that if a source such as Lewis Samuel Feuer's detailed 12-page section on "The Ideology of Imperialist Guilt" (in a book on The Imperialist Spirit and the Anti-Imperialist Mind, varies his language, sometimes using phrases like "Western peoples," or just plain "guilt" to discuss this concept in the course of a complex, scholarly discussion of Western guilt.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:08, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:TNT / WP:ADVOCACY. The page, as written, is not about the concept of Western guilt, but seems instead to innumerate types and instances of “Western guilt” without a coherent structure. The concept itself is multi-faceted, as it appears, referring at varying times to perceptions relating to colonialism, Holocaust, Christian missions, current migrant crisis, etc. The article is a mish-mash of these concepts and examples, resulting in WP:SYNTH. This leads me to conclude that it’s best deleted at this time, until it can be completely rewritten.
Separately, the argument “includes books as sources” is not convincing; I could probably find any combination of words in a book and synthesise an article out of them, or, alternatively, write an article about "Post-colonial guilt", based on the same sources. There’s also some fringe element to the subject, as in: The Control Factor: Our Struggle to See the True Threat - Page 94 by Bill Siegel – 2012: “White or Western Guilt usually involves large wealth transfers. Whether it is directed at Great Society programs or aid for lesser-developed countries, much of the game of guilt revolves around extracting money.” Etc.
So, I would be especially careful when developing such an article. In summary, there may be a notable topic here somewhere, but this article ain’t it. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:55, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Note that Siegel is not cite din the article, and that fringe thinkers can be removed from articles.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:42, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. A Google Scholar search of "Western guilt" -"western guilt culture" (which brings up too many false positives which refer to works following Ruth Benedict's classification schema), brings up 900 academic papers which use the term, and from a quick perusal of some of them, many of them do use in a cohesive way, which would point towards this meeting WP:GNG (e.g. [8][9]. Problems with articles on notable topics should be kept and the problems resolved through talk page discussion/editing, and if the synthesis is really that big of issue, cutting it down..---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 08:04, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

It's OK to be white

It's OK to be white (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "It's OK to be white" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Does not pass WP:GNG. Memes may be speedy deleted but this has several sources albeit not inline citations. Also not notable on its own. Article is not new either. Some sources are quite recent so the article might also be WP:TOOSOON. umbolo 21:22, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:31, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Deleting this article would be an act of racism. Don't do it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.245.48.71 (talk) 21:39, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep easily passes GNG.
    • www.metronews.ca/news/edmonton/2017/10/31/pro-white-message-taped-to-native-studies-building-day-after-racist-pumpkin-incident.html
    • http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/its-okay-to-be-white-signs_us_5a01c91ce4b0368a4e87165e
    • http://www.metronews.ca/news/calgary/2017/11/08/why-finding-it-s-okay-to-be-white-posters-at-the-u-of-c-doesn-t-surprise-anyone.html

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:20, 8 November 2017 (UTC).

  • My gut is that it would be best to merge this to some article representing a higher level of abstraction to this idea. We should keep the information, but this is a very short article on what may be a very fleeting meme. bd2412 T 03:53, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Exactly, it could be merged to pol or, as a last resort, to 4chan (which is a FA!). umbolo 08:14, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Should be deleted or merged per WP:NOTNEWS point 2: "most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion". No sign of lasting significance for this prank/meme. Could go under 4chan; eventually might be included as a sentence or two in an article on race relations in the United States. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:05, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Merge to 4chan per above.--DynaGirl (talk) 18:29, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep, International coverage, different incidents, easily passes wp:gng. --GRuban (talk) 00:11, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep, several different articles of event and reaction all ober the country, it fit wp:gng. --Aréat (talk) 11:15, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:27, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:27, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:19, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete - It's a meme for which we have a few decent sources from the span of a few days. Notability requires lasting significance. If there were a huge amount of coverage in these few days such that we could assume it would continue, that would be one thing, but this seems like it's more likely that it won't be lasting. No opinion on a merge target. Don't know that 4chan would be right for WP:WEIGHT purposes though. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 04:40, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:58, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Merge: to 4chan#Internet memes. 4chan seems apt at making memes which attract transient media attention due to their controversial nature. I doubt any lasting notability independent of 4chan will be available, and at any rate it's too soon to tell. For now, best just to merge; Wikipedia isn't a meme database. Janet-O (talk) 11:30, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Striking out sockpuppet !vote. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:52, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep per Rich Farmbrough. groig (talk) 16:33, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
    • Comment Several people have asked whether there will be ongoing coverage. Here are some articles from just the past 2 days from 2 rather widely separated locations: Nov 13, Grand Haven, Michigan; Again; Nov 13, Vancouver, Washington;Nov 14, Washington State University. I'm going to go out on a limb to say, yes, there will be ongoing coverage. --GRuban (talk) 20:30, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
      • And it keeps coming: Newsweek, Saturday, Nov 19 (large article); The State (South Carolina), yesterday, Nov 20 (not very large) --GRuban (talk) 14:57, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep passes GNG per Rich Farmbrough. Aleccat 01:30, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Redirect and selective Merge to 4chan - (unless someone identifies a better merge target.) That's what I had already written, based on the shallow sources on the page, and above, all more of less shallow breaking news reports like this WaPo headline":'‘It’s okay to be white’ signs and stickers appear on campuses and streets across the country. But I try to be fair, so before clicking "save changes" I read the WaPo story, which is INDEPTH reporting; so is this one in Jacobite The Asymmetric Meme Warfare of “It’s OK to be White”, this in the Washington Times: OK to be white’ campaign rankles higher education, and several others. There does seem to be enough here to KEEP.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:42, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:ONEEVENT. A 4chan orchestrated papering of schools is a single event. No notability beyond that so no encyclopedic value beyond this. jps (talk) 20:42, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
You are misusing that guideline. WP:ONEEVENT deals with articles about people - this is a protest or event as far as I can tell. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)[1] 21:25, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Or you could try to be a little less pedantic and look at the spirit of the guideline. In any case, the exact same principle applies to events. So WP:LASTING then. jps (talk) 22:19, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
They're different incidents, in different, widely separated locations (by the width of a continent!), with different people involved. But even so, we've got thousands of articles about single events, see Category:Events_by_month for example. Some of the events became Wikipedia:Featured articles, such as Stephen Colbert at the 2006 White House Correspondents' Dinner after it survived its nomination for deletion. This series of events seems to have plenty of lasting impact, as you can see by the news articles that keep being written about it throughout the course of this AFD, even. --GRuban (talk) 23:21, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
  • WP:LASTING: "It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable."E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:38, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Don't fall for the WP:SENSATION, folks. It's not worth it. jps (talk) 01:11, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Jewish etiquette

Jewish etiquette (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Jewish etiquette" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

This is an essay, not an encyclopedia article. It largely consists of an editor's extrapolation from the practices among one Jewish community to "Jewish etiquette". Large amounts of original research. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:38, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

I have since addressed the issue that you mentioned, renaming the article to "Yemenite Jewish etiquette," instead of the more general title of "Jewish etiquette." As for the "essay-like" style, I am correcting that too, so that it does not read like an essay.Davidbena (talk) 16:08, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Malik Shabazz Malik, is there anything usable here that would make a viable article? The concept seems worthy of an article at first glance. Irondome (talk) 02:45, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
The subject of Jewish etiquette (דרך ארץ, derech eretz) is definitely notable, and some of what's in this article might be suitable for a section of an article that was based on general sources on that subject. As written, however, most of this article is almost a sociological study of etiquette among the Jewish community in Yemen that's extrapolated, as if what was true about the Yemenite Jews in one period is true of all Jews in all lands throughout history. That may or may not be the case—I'm skeptical, but I don't claim to be an expert in the history of Jewish manners—but books about the history of Jewish etiquette would be appropriate sources, not almost exclusively books about Yemenite Jews. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:11, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
User:Malik Shabazz, shalom. I think the article makes it very clear in the beginning that Jews were exiled and that etiquette has changed from country to country. With that said, the author of the work that I cited in the lead paragraph alleges that Yemenite Jewish customs of etiquette were once pervasive among all Jewish communities, which view is also supported by the Minor Tractate "Derech Eretz" and whose list of mannerisms of Jews (when that work was first compiled) mirrors those of Yemenite Jews. It is no secret that the Jews of Yemen are held to have preserved the ancient-most traditions in Israel.Davidbena (talk) 04:25, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment I brought this editor to WP:ANI for overindulgence in WP:OR, a ban was in the making but for some strange reason it did not get decided/applied. My view is that this editor overindulges in WP:PRIMARY religious sources, sometimes he quotes WP:SECONDARY sources, mostly in Hebrew, which I don't read and I cannot check if they verify the added information, as pointed by others at Talk:Intelligent design he cannot be trusted to render the view of the secondary sources he does quote, engaging instead in WP:SYNTH and WP:Editorializing. I guess WP:TNT would apply. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:02, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Tgeorgescu, The standard procedure for bringing down foreign language sources is to comply to any request for an English translation of the original source. I will be happy to do this if anyone should ask for a direct English translation of sources provided.Davidbena (talk) 04:18, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
I have in fact sympathy for him, but despite my sympathy I have to note that he learned nothing from the WP:ANI ban proposal, or from his many rejected AFC submissions. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:23, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm very sorry if I misunderstood the WP:ANI ban proposal. I never knew that we were prohibited from suggesting amendments to the article Intelligent Design (see last discussion on Talk-Page there), which, unfortunately, incensed a lot of my co-editors against me. No offense intended.Davidbena (talk) 04:35, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
The subject is notable and there are good sources (Encyclopaedia Judaica, s.v. ETIQUETTE), keep, WP:KEEP. --185.13.106.107 (talk) 04:46, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
@Davidbena: Your efforts are worthy, your persistence is admirable, it is just that Wikipedia is not the venue for such articles. See WP:NOTESSAY. Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:40, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Why do you say this work infringes upon WP:NOTESSAY, may God forbid, when the vast majority of the sources quoted here, except where otherwise stated, have been drawn from Yosef Qafih's seminal work, "Jewish Life in Sana (Halichot Teman)", and where he devotes an entire chapter (pp. 260–263) to the topic of "Common Blessings and Etiquette"? Furthermore, as for the Hebrew language preserved by Yemenite Jewry, Israeli linguist Hanoch Yelon, in Lĕšonénu: A Journal for the Study of the Hebrew Language and Cognate Subjects (issue 3) (1931), has already noted how the Yemenite Jewish modes of speech are a common heritage of all of Israel, the Jewish nation of old. In the cases that I have specifically mentioned in this article, I have cited reliable sources that state explicitly that such language as noted in the article was used in the form of good manners and etiquette.Davidbena (talk) 14:13, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
It seems to me a textbook case of WP:SYNTH. "Hebrew language has some words" non sequitur "this is the etiquette of most Jews". Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:19, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
  • comment As a goy working for an Orthodox Jew, I really have to wonder whether there is a common Jewish etiquette which cuts across the various communities in different countries. Mangoe (talk) 15:18, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment. The current situation is a bit of a mess. Derekh eretz already exists as a disambiguation page with links to four articles. Torah im Derech Eretz, in particular, has a lenghty editing history that suggests it was initially conceived and developed as an article about at least some aspects of the concept, including etiquette. The current lead of that article seems to focus the article more narrowly on the views of R. Samson Raphael Hirsch but the content of the article is broader than that. The topic discussion as a whole could stand to see some rationalization and reorganization but exactly what that should look like would require discussion. As it currently stands, I agree with the majority here that the current Jewish etiquette article smacks of WP:OR and, under that title, at least, is misfocused, and it's not clear a separate article solely on the topic of "Jewish etiquette", in the limited sense of social courtesy, can stand up. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:15, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:57, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:58, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOTESSAY. The page is completely misnamed; this is a case study of Yemenite Jewish customs, certainly not "derech eretz" or the mistranslated "Jewish etiquette". Anything that's not OR or SYNTH could be summarized under Yemenite Jews, where the page creator is already active. Yoninah (talk) 22:07, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
So, do you think with minor changes per style (so as not to read like an essay), the title of the article should be changed to "Yemenite Jewish etiquette"? I could agree to that.Davidbena (talk) 23:08, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
No, not "etiquette"! Yemenite Jewish customs, maybe. (Some of your sources specify Ancient Yemenite Jewish customs–we can't assume that any modern-day Yemenite Jews follow these customs.) But reading more closely, you have a lot of SYNTH here that must be removed before making a Yemen-specific article. SYNTH means that you're familiar with some customs so you wrote them up for an article and then went looking for sources to back them up. The article is cobbled together rather than flows naturally. Most of the "Table etiquette" section isn't Yemen-specific. The third paragraph under "Personal hygiene and conduct in the toilet" is only quoting the Rambam and the Gemara, showing that this custom isn't unique to Yemen and, without Yemenite sources, might not have even been practiced there. I think you should stick to your Yemen-specific sources for your research and paraphrase what they say to make a new article. Ideally, every sentence should be cited to a source (that will help cut down on the essay-like tone). And please get rid of all those references to "derech eretz" and Derekh Eretz Rabbah, which is a product of original research–trying to make connections between two disparate subjects. Yoninah (talk) 23:28, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Yemen-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:13, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
User:Yoninah, The word "customs" is far too broad of a term, and would incorporate far more than what I am willing to undertake. The whole point here is to mention "etiquette," just as there are articles on Japanese etiquette, etc. The vast majority of sources deal specifically with etiquette. Since the original idea was to show "Jewish etiquette" it explains my citation as a source of "Tractate Derech Eretz" and of Rambam, many of which mannerisms recorded there mirror those of Yemenite Jews. To show that there are similar areas of etiquette, is this an infringement of WP:OR? After all, Yemenites belong to the family of Jews and have actually followed to the letter many of the same codes of etiquette. Am I only allowed to mention Yemenite Jewish sources, without referencing the Talmud, let's say with a sign of direction "cf." (compare)? Since we say in Hebrew, "No man sees his own disabilities" (אין אדם רואה נגעי עצמו), do you think that you could help me remove those places in the article which you said appears to be from WP:SYNTH? Davidbena (talk) 01:13, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I have already begun to make the necessary changes in this article to make it conform to Wikipedia standards. Much work still needs to be done. I am working on the assumption that I will be allowed to change the name of this article to the more appropriate title of "Yemenite Jewish etiquette," and to make it conform strictly to Yemenite Jewish mannerisms and codes of etiquette. To that end, I will make a new sub-section entitled "Tractate Derech Eretz" in which I will amass all the references cited in that tractate and which are not directly connected, per se, to Yemenite Jewish custom, although they might be. In this manner, I will avoid what appears to be an infringement of WP:SYNTH. All that I ask here is patience from my fellow co-editors.Davidbena (talk) 14:32, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

To whom it may concern: This morning, I began to incorporate the changes in the article, which User:Yoninah and I agreed upon in the article's Talk-Page (new title, rewrite of lead paragraph, adding a sub-section entitled "Background"). I still have more to do, but I'll have to wait till this afternoon to resume the work. Meanwhile, editors here should feel free to add or subtract whatever they may feel would be beneficial to our readers. I am in the process of collecting other references.Davidbena (talk) 06:41, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment The page has been moved, which I believe is not allowed during an AFD discussion. Yoninah (talk) 11:46, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Can an administrator (e.g. User:Avraham) please tell us whether or not we are permitted to change a title of an article during an AFD discussion? The change of title was done in accordance with what is being discussed in the ongoing discussion.Davidbena (talk) 14:02, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
It isn't forbidden, but it may lead to confusion. See Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#You may edit the article during the discussion. -- Avi (talk) 20:00, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:22, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

To Whom It May Concern: Many of the issues which prompted this WP:AFD on 9 November 2017 have since been addressed and corrected. I appeal to those adjudicating over the worthiness of Wikipedia articles to consider keeping this valuable and informative article, as it fits the notability requirement of articles. Meanwhile, I shall continue to improve the style of the article, as time permits.Davidbena (talk) 02:25, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

  • delete per WP:NOTMANUAL. This is not an encyclopedia article, sourced to anthropology books and describing actual Yemeni etiquette. It is more of an instruction manual and in that spirit is actually sourced to things like the Talmud and other very, very old texts that can only be sources for content about behavior at the times they were written. (people may find explanations or justifications for current behavior in such books, but a source would be needed for that). This is instruction not anthropological description. Doesn't belong in WP. Jytdog (talk) 21:20, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
It does not surprise me that you would vote this way, since you and I have a history of "contentious" communication. This is not an instruction manual, but rather a description of etiquette, just as it exists in EVERY article on etiquette, Check for yourself.Davidbena (talk) 18:51, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
Quite a breach of etiquette to attack another person this way. :) But also irrelevant in AfD. Just take as an example the section on Yemenite_Jewish_etiquette#The_Evil_eye. Lovely writing but unsourced, actually. The "sources" there are to Rashi (irrelevant to support content discussing contemporary behavior/beliefs) and something described as "Journal Teima, [...]". Looking at the 77 sources, about half of them are to the Talmud, Rashi, something called Aleph-Be, United Torath Avoth: Bnei-Barak, dictionaries, etc. Ref 55 is an unsourced essay all of it own. There is no sense of time here either. Are all of these customs in 2017? ISBN 965-235-011-7 is the kind of source to be using but that is from 1983, an entire generation ago. Jytdog (talk) 19:19, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete -The article reads like a cross between a dictionary entry and an essay with an elaborate bibliography, not an encyclopedic article. It also appears to be independently researched. Delete per WP:NOR and WP:NOTESSAY. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 04:02, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. The issues initially raised have been satisfactorily addressed.Davidbena (talk) 18:53, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
The source for the first paragraph under Yemenite Jewish etiquette#Common respect for parents, teachers and elders is sourced, namely, Shelomo Dov Goitein, The Yemenites – History, Communal Organization, Spiritual Life (Selected Studies), editor: Menahem Ben-Sasson, Jerusalem 1983, p. 259. The second paragraph was taken from the journal named, but I must find again the year, issue and page number. As for this article, please try comparing the sources cited in "Yemenite Jewish etiquette" with the sources cited in Etiquette in Japan.Davidbena (talk) 21:26, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
Right, the sources for the Middle East article are a joke. But please try to keep the sifrei kodesh out of everything except the Background section. Yoninah (talk) 21:39, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
User:Yoninah, the way that I have dealt with the issue of referring to "sifrei kodesh" is to merely cite "Compare" (cf.), without saying specifically that the practice dates back to the older source.Davidbena (talk) 06:19, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Maybe the best thing here would be to draftify this and then put it through AfC after davidbena dramatically revises it? davidbena if you would agree to that, we can simply withdraw the AfD and you can fix this in peace, if User:Malik Shabazz agrees.... Jytdog (talk) 21:47, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
First, you, indeed, raised a good point that there "is no sense of time" in the article, which I will do my best to incorporate the matter into this article at your request. To briefly answer, though, older Yemenite Jews still practice this etiquette, and it is taught in Yemenite Jewish seminaries and "Talmud Torah" throughout the country. So, yes, the etiquette is still applicable in 2017, except where otherwise the article notes that the practice has become obsolete. As for the secondary sources used, none are "very, very old texts" as you alleged, but have been written and published in our generation. Since I am doing my very best to satisfactorily address all the issues that you have raised here, and since there is some merit in keeping this article in "main space," while the minor idiosyncrasies that do exist do not justify its deletion, I would be against putting it in draftspace until an AfC be made on it. I am willing to let the judges of AFD judge the merits of this article, for good or for bad, and if worse comes to worse, I can only say that I tried my best to do what I humbly saw as right to do. BTW: One of the sources cited by me, namely, "Aleph-Be," is published and distributed by a Yemenite "Talmud Torah" in Bnei Barak, and has therein a specific chart on etiquette.Davidbena (talk) 06:00, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Glad you are hearing the issue with putting things into time.
You need sources to state in the page, that older Yemeni Jews still follow this.
In general the page is way too much coming out of your mind and experience, with refs thrown in behind that. This is not OK, and therefore this page is very, very likely to be deleted per TNT as it is fundamentally flawed. I guess that is the road we are going down. Jytdog (talk) 19:38, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
As for what you said about providing a source that the "older Yemeni Jews still follow this," those who know the community, know that this is the case, just like saying that the Lakota Indians of North and South Dakota, most of them no longer dwell in Tipis, but in regular box houses. There is no infringement on WP:OR when the subject matter is WP:SKYBLUE, even if it had not been supported by a source. Besides, this source: Yehuda Ratzaby, Dictionary of the Hebrew Language used by Yemenite Jews (אוצר לשון הקדש שלבני תימן), Tel-Aviv 1978, Preface (p. ט"ז) [Hebrew], says explicitly that the "writing etiquette" is practised to this very day! As a former seminary student in Jerusalem, I was also taught the same Yemenite Jewish etiquette, and have seen it practised between Yemenites themselves. Had I written an article in which I tried to prove a certain scientific point of view, using my own inferences, and one that could easily be disproven, that would be tantamount to WP:OR. Here, the obvious is the obvious, to those who know the community. Moreover, it is taught in the curriculum of the Yemenite "Talmud Torah" in Bnei Barak, as shown by its published text book.Davidbena (talk) 22:09, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Most of what you write there is demonstrating that this is an essay reflecting your personal knowledge, which means it doesn't belong in WP. A source from 1978 that says "to this very day" is relevant as of 1978 and not a day beyond that. Jytdog (talk) 02:11, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
If the article reflects an "essay-like style," it is my own short-coming. If you see places that sound like as essay, please feel free to change the style. We are permitted here to work on the article while undergoing this review. I will also continue to improve the style, so that it sounds more "encyclopedic."Davidbena (talk) 02:31, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Social science Proposed deletions

Language

List european countries and cities in all languages

List european countries and cities in all languages (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "List european countries and cities in all languages" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Violates WP:NOT#DICTIONARY. Batternut (talk) 10:27, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete, if not speedy delete. With a title like "List of European countries and cities in all languages" there is no coherent subject. Also redundant, with articles like List of country names in various languages and List of countries and dependencies and their capitals in native languages. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 10:35, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. It seems a shame, as the creator has clearly expended a lot of effort researching and tabulating the information: but per nom and per the preceding comment, it's not really what Wikipedia is for ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 11:26, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment The title is really bad but normally even terrible titles aren't a reason for deletion. Creator of the article really does not get Wikipedia article naming conventions or the logic behind them. This needs to be moved to something like "List of European countries and cities in various European languages" except there are still several problems. First, this should really be split into separate country and city lists because they are two distinct topics and there is no coherent way to mix them. Also, because of the nature of this content, even including all European languages would be unwieldy as far as the width of the table. The way this is constructed is entirely arbitrary and it is hard to say why or why not something would be included even if it were broken out into separate lists. And yes, this may be nothing more than dictionary-like material which Wikipedia is not for. —DIYeditor (talk) 13:04, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete - I agree it's regretful that so much work went into this, but... so much of this is arbitrary and random, besides being based apparently entirely on Google Translate, which is pretty bottom-of-the-barrel as far as sources go. Most of this wouldn't even meet criteria for a non-English redirect, and it... just doesn't seem to have any clear encyclopedic purpose. Presumably, even if someone did for some reason want to know the name of Bern in Hungarian, they would just go to google translate, and not prefer to use an unwieldy and fairly arbitrary table, even if they could find it. The cities chosen appear to be purely OR, as does the languages chosen (Why leave out so many of Languages of Europe#List of languages?), as arguably are the countries chosen to some degree (Where's the Vatican, Belarus, Azerbaijan, Moldova? How did we decide whether or not to include Kosovo?). GMGtalk 13:55, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per all of the above, and, more particularly, WP:NOT. — fortunavelut lunaRarely receiving (many) pings. Bizarre. 14:13, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  • delete Per all of the above. Wales? Luxembourg? Monaco? Barcelona? Catalunia? C'mon. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 14:19, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  • What's the deletion reason (guideline) ? I made this (indeed very badly named, that is acknowleged) list as an experiment. Which grew. The idea comes from an older discussion about names in Austria-Hungary. If the list is "un-encyclopedic", I can agree. But if it's about syntax, that could well be changed. My intention was to have blue links in English only, and "local" names in bold. But please note, all (current) links go to this Wikipedia. (the construction is limited due to my poor knowledge of Wiki-syntax only). Due to the syntax everything becomes bold, but I'm certain someone with better knowledge could fix that. About further languages - yes, naturally. I began with 6 or 7 and have added several after that. Anyone can add a new language. (If it "survives", my intention is to add Finnish (as a second Uralic language) and Portuguese (which I guess is the largest not available). And then a very large majority of all Latin spelled languages, spoken in Europe will be covered. (But naturally further languages can still be added)
Please note - the list/table isn't random, if I only knew how, I would have marked vertical lines between Germanic, Romance, Slavic and Uralic languages. And also indicated a "bondry" to Hungarian, which isn't an Indo-European language at all. English first, then in "size order" - within Germanic, Romance and Slavic languages. (perhaps Italian should change position with Spanish, though). Would there be any advantage in adding languages which are not spelled with Latin letters ? I chose to begin with languages spelled with Latin letters. One idea is to compare spellings, but I have encountered confusion of for instance Prague and Vienna in the past, here at this Wiki.
Also, the list could well (and quite easily) separate countries from cities, into two tables - or horizontal lines or different style. The cities a side of Capital ones, are chosen from an linguistic interesting point of view. It's not much point in adding for instance Luton, Kiel or Bordeaux which I presume are spelled the same. But there are naturally far more to add. Also "European languages = languages spoken in Europe". Naturally can Wales be added as well as Welsh. Etc. If it's "un-encyclopedic" however, I will not defend it. Otherwise it can be improved in many ways. Boeing720 (talk) 19:43, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
The problem is that Wikipedia is not the place to conduct experiments on things that editors personally find interesting from a linguistic point of view. At best this is pure original research. GMGtalk 19:50, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
It began as an experiment in my Sandbox. Is it "un-encyclopedic" ?Boeing720 (talk) 19:54, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
But I strongly object to it being "arbitrary and random" or OR - if I just knew how to, the structure could be made much clearer. Florence, Venice, Elsinore, Cologne etc are chosen because they are spelled differently in most languages. Boeing720 (talk) 20:00, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
In my opinion, yes. It is not an encyclopedia article, nor does it serve any clear purpose as a collection of encyclopedia articles chosen for any obviously objective and meaningful reason. In the best case scenario, all it does is comparatively poorly duplicate the language links on the existing articles, which themselves have clear encyclopedic relevance because they serve to point multilingual readers to versions of articles on non-English projects. It has nothing to do with the syntax. GMGtalk 20:07, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
I can accept your beginning. But a clear purpose exists, to compare spelling between languages, and language relationships. If studying the table, one can see clear similarities within the different language groups. (Which a better syntax would underline better) But also historical and cultural elements can be traced through this table. In order for a language to make a translation of a geographical name, there are two major aspects, A. Is the "local name" pronounceable in an other language, there is no call for a translation. (or a minor "local change" occurs) B. The geographical area/country or city has to be known well enough, and over a fairly long time as well. Otherwise no translation of the foreign name will be done. Take England as an example, apparently "good enough" within other Germanic languages ("Engeland" in Dutch is sooner a "local adoption"), but in Romance ("Latin based") languages, Angleterre, Inglaterra etc are obvious translations, where "Angle" refers to (East-)Anglia and "terra" means "land", the Spaniards then thought "Ingla" sounds better than the French "Angle". But as "France" in spelling is good enough for English pronunciation, no transtation has been required. But "Deutchland" has called for a translation, also in Romance languages. (Whilst the Dutch "Duitland" and Scandinavian "Tyskland" are more of local adaptions) Etc. So there is a clear linguistic purpose and objective included (which will increase if it is expanded), in my opinion. Boeing720 (talk) 20:42, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
But the purpose of Wikipedia is to be an encyclopedia, and not an experiment on similarities within language groups. GMGtalk 20:45, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Userfy for the creator's future reference. --John (talk) 21:46, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
To GreenMeansGo. As I explained , it began as an experiment in my Sandbox. To explain the way I can see the table or list as useful to our readers, isn't an experiment. It would be more helpful if you could express what's unencyclopedic. Boeing720 (talk) 00:59, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
When nominating for deletion I had in mind the "Wikipedia is not a dictionary" policy (as in WP:NOT#DICTIONARY), as the article currently resembled the back page of an inter-railer's phrasebook. The policy is expanded in Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary, particularly section WP:NOTDIC#Overview: encyclopedia vs dictionary which explains that Wikipedia articles are about people, places, concepts etc, not just the words and etymologies which (though interesting enough) is food for Wiktionary instead. Perhaps much more focus on the history of the relationships between the names might turn into something encyclopedic, see for example (noting that "other stuff exists" is not a defence), Names of Germany. However, taking that approach for all European countries together will run into scoping trouble. You are welcome to try, and I wish you success. But that is sandbox work, imho. Batternut (talk) 01:52, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
I thank you for this information. This isn't a dictionary. OK. Do you know what John meant by "Userfy" ? Boeing720 (talk) 03:18, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
A wikibook explains userfy - to move the article into the User namespace (~= sandbox). Batternut (talk) 09:53, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Not a dictionary? I can imagine finding this list in for example the Yachtsmans Ten Language Dictionary. Batternut (talk) 10:13, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
I meant I agree, Wikipedia is not supposed to be a dictionary. A valid criticism. Could Userfy be accepted ? Boeing720 (talk) 15:53, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Userfy seems entirely reasonable to me; I don't think it's listed as a typical AfD result, but this article is all your work so putting into your userspace must be OK. Then if you manage to rework it appropriately I'd suggest putting it through WP:AFC. Batternut (talk) 17:26, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:47, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:47, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:47, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment per Batternut's suggestion, I'm willing to strike out my "delete" vote and replace it with "userfy" if others are in agreement ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 21:41, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
  • My vote: Userfy. I no longer wish to defend it (including the horrific name I gave it). A reasonable and valid criticism is accepted for my part, such as what Wikipedia isn't supposed to be. The minor adjustments I've done today, was only done in order to try to illustrate, there were no OR or any random selection, in my intentions. But as other, and valid arguments has been presented, I now hope for Userfy. And I won't object to a deletion if the outcome will be that instead. Sorry for this and thanks! Boeing720 (talk) 00:23, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Bader S. Dweik

Bader S. Dweik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Bader S. Dweik" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Near-certain COI (WP:SPA), I have pruned the vast majority of the "publications" listed because they were either directly uploaded to servers, or were in predatory open access journals. No independent biographical sources. Guy (Help!) 14:28, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:22, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:22, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:22, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. Citation counts too low for WP:PROF#C1, no other notability evident. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:58, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete does not meet our inclusion criteria for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:32, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Input processing instructions

Input processing instructions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Input processing instructions" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Article whose sole source I just removed as it was a predatory open access journal. Has been tagged since forever for notability, sourcing and orphan status. Guy (Help!) 18:14, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 15:52, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 15:52, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Center for Research in Urdu Language Processing

Center for Research in Urdu Language Processing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Center for Research in Urdu Language Processing" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Failed to find any coverage. Fails WP:ORG. Alternatively redirect to FAST-NU. Störm (talk) 15:42, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala 11:28, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala 11:28, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. Can't see how this is going to pass WP:ORG. Ajf773 (talk) 12:05, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Matriculation (sports activity)

Matriculation (sports activity) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Matriculation (sports activity)" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

No significant coverage in reliable sources. The fact this phrase may be used doesn't mean we need an encyclopedia article on the topic, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Pontificalibus (talk) 12:07, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:08, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:08, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete Unexplained inside joke fails GNG. Matriculate this stub into the back of a MacNeilus. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:09, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  • (To wit, GNG)--Jerzyt 01:13, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Null (Pro forma recusal): I created the stub to pass the buck in light of my total lack of interest in team sports.
    (A perhaps obsolete expression: "my mother must have been scared by ...", say, a lacrosse stick or a Penzoil race car; i was told that's a "birth defects due to emotional trauma" meme, which i recall from at least one cartoon when TV and i were young).
    --Jerzyt 15:03, 17 & 1:13, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
  •    But wait: Keep, after all; get serious about seeking reliable documentation of the football usage; and REPURPOSE the nominated page after renaming (if only to preserve the edit history pending adequate research), by renaming to Matriculation (misnomers):
       I thot i had no dog in this discussion, but Aha: indeed, here is major-league documentation for the term's as yet unmentioned but now third mode of usage: i.e., college status, the contributor's sense, & "matriculating while in college" (which is documented along with a batch of other misnomers, said to have been intentionally committed for deception and/or a few belly laughs).
       It's plausible that there may be some unconscious or unconscious folk etymology involved: if the football story is verifiable, it raises the question of possible logic that may underlie the odd usage: an adolescent's analogy between the ball rolling lackadaisically down the out-of-bounds line and a juvenile visual analog). Matriculation may well find annual discussion by coaching staff, due to the various conferences' eligibility rules, and evoking it as an intentional double entendre may be a documentable inside joke.
    --Jerzyt 01:13, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
  • recuse myself I'm a biased Chiefs fan. It is a real saying, along the lines of 65 Toss Power Trap.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:47, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete an overheard and unexplained usage suggests that it's not notable, and there aren't references to suggest otherwise. Not all malapropisms are notable. Even if it were notable, it would likely fall afoul of WP:DICTDEF. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:01, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete completely non notable, not in any reliable sources. Even the article didn't claim any importance or wider usage in general  — Ammarpad (talk) 04:55, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Memon Abdul Majeed Sindh

Memon Abdul Majeed Sindh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Memon Abdul Majeed Sindh" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

No coverage in WP:RS. Indusian is in habit of creating such articles without reliable source. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 16:17, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:40, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:40, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:40, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. The only hits on Google are a couple of mentions of his death in the Hindu Times' "on this day in history" column, plus a blog post. Not proven to be significantly notable ~dom Kaos~ (talk)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:42, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. I don't feel like I'm in a position to evaluate the notability here because the literature in this field is likely to be in either Sindhi (a google search for the full name in Sindhi returns a high (for the context) number of hits) or in Urdu (I can't read either), and sources in English aren't generally likely to be found. And if any are found, as the previous comment testifies, then this is likely to be another indication of notability. And speaking of editors and their habits, the nom does appear to have one for nominating articles without seeming to appreciate the need for WP:BEFORE. – Uanfala 09:30, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
You may continue your inclusionism campaign. We here follow WP guidelines which requires every subject to be verified per WP:V in WP:RS and should pass WP:GNG. Burden is on the creator of the article to find Sindhi-language sources not on us to go to Sindh and find coverage in old papers. Störm (talk) 15:42, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  17:00, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Cyrillization of Esperanto

Cyrillization of Esperanto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Cyrillization of Esperanto" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

There is a single reference (with a Cyrillization which differs from that in the article in case of h and ĥ), but hardly notable. Burzuchius (talk) 14:20, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:58, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  11:43, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Cyrillization of Arabic

Cyrillization of Arabic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Cyrillization of Arabic" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Unsourced, probably original research. Burzuchius (talk) 13:53, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same reason:
Cyrillization of German (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Cyrillization of Georgian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hungarian Cyrillic alphabet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Cyrillization of Chemical nomenclature (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Burzuchius (talk) 14:10, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala 14:29, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala 14:29, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala 14:29, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  11:43, 19 November 2017 (UTC)



Prodded articles


History

Norman L. Paxton

Norman L. Paxton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Norman L. Paxton" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Aside from WP:NOTMEMORIAL, per sources the highest rank held seems to be Lieutenant, which doesn't qualify under WP:NSOLDIER, and the highest award appears to have been the Navy Cross, which only qualifies under NSOLDIER if it is awarded multiple times. Their documented participation seems to be isolated to a single attack in 1944, which doesn't itself seem to have been part of a larger notable battle. Most/all coverage seems to be obits or directly related to the Navy Cross citation, and so the subject does not appear to meet WP:GNG. GMGtalk 13:53, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

The above is incorrect. Norman Paxton's highest rank is Captain and awards are Navy Cross and Distinguished Flying Cross. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Forevaclevah (talkcontribs) 14:38, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 16:15, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 16:15, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 16:15, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

List of people associated with World War I

List of people associated with World War I (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "List of people associated with World War I" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

After working on this list, it occurred to me that it's way too indiscriminate, especially with such a vague criterion, failing WP:SALAT. Even broken down by country, there have got to be unmanageable numbers of entries. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:35, 22 November 2017 (UTC) Clarityfiend (talk) 11:35, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete -- Here is my personal standard: No published list inclusion criteria, no list. I might write an essay. Rhadow (talk) 12:43, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 14:37, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 14:37, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Category:People of World War I, which is meant to be a nearly indiscriminate parent category for anyone associated with the First World War. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 16:20, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. While I disagree with Rhadow in that the inclusion criteria here is pretty clear - this list, if fully populated by notable people only, would be huge. It is much better served by a category - and guess what? there are cats for this - as may be seen when navigating Category:World War I by country, e.g. Category:Australian military personnel of World War I and Category:British military personnel of World War I. Or navigated Category:People of World War I.Icewhiz (talk) 16:25, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete and or redirect to Category:People of World War I per Patar knight's suggestion. This list is way too vague on who actually qualifies as a notable person who is associated with World War I. I think the People of World War I category covers this topic better and without the notability restriction. 98.209.191.37 (talk) 17:19, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Imperial election of 1376

Imperial election of 1376 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Imperial election of 1376" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

There are several of these kinds of pages that are formed as a series. They were all created by User:Dallyripple who split them off from the main article, Imperial election. All of these articles have the section Election of X (year), followed by a the subsections Electors and Elected. However, this series of articles does not seem to meet the WP:N criterion. Firstly, the topics of this article series are too trivial (and don't seem to have WP:RS due to that). This information has been contained in the Imperial election article ever since it was created by User:RandomCritic so it may also be WP:OR. -KAP03(Talk • Contributions • Email) 20:55, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Here are the rest of the articles in the series. -KAP03(Talk • Contributions • Email) 21:02, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Imperial election of May 22, 1400 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Imperial election of August 21, 1400 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Imperial election of September 20, 1410 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Imperial election of October 1, 1410 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Imperial election of 1411 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Imperial election of 1438 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Imperial election of 1440 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Imperial election of 1486 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Imperial election of 1519 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Imperial election of 1531 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Imperial election of 1562 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Imperial election of 1575 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Imperial election of 1612 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Imperial election of 1619 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Imperial election of 1636 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Imperial election of 1653 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Imperial election of 1658 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Imperial election of 1690 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Imperial election of 1711 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Imperial election of 1742 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Imperial election of 1745 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Imperial election of 1764 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Imperial election of 1790 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Imperial election of 1792 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -KAP03(Talk • Contributions • Email) 21:15, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. -KAP03(Talk • Contributions • Email) 22:43, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the assertion that any election of a Holy Roman Emperor is a trivial or non-notable event. Dallyripple (talk) 23:19, 21 November 2017 (UTC) Note to closing admin: Dallyripple (talkcontribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 00:39, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep but Trout Dailyripple for creating these pages without any references. The topics are likely notable, and the wikilinks are reference enough to keep the pages until they can be improved. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:57, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Please withdraw this frivolous nomination TonyBallioni (talk) 06:04, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect back to Imperial election, from where they were all removed. DrKay (talk) 07:12, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I agree with Icewhiz that new structure is better. It's probably should be linked to Imperial election, but independent article for each election allows more information to be added. All these elections in one article make it unreadable. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 14:02, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I stand by my pithy !vote above: this might be the worst AfD nomination I have ever seen on Wikipedia, so I don't think it deserves more comment on the substance that that. Just responding to DrKay: I think this format is better. Its what we follow for papal conclaves, and the overwhelming majority of them almost as horrible as these articles. Its a good format because it allows others to improve them more easily than if they were in a larger article (its how I started improving the conclave series). TonyBallioni (talk) 14:55, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep. AfD is the wrong forum - this is really a question of whether to merge back into Imperial election from where these were all removed (cut and paste). I think the new organization is better - citations should be improved in the sub-articles as well as in Imperial election. I think Dailyripple should've posted on the parent article's talk-page prior to branching all of these off, and should've added references.Icewhiz (talk) 07:35, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep, discuss on the talk page. Both the previous structure (all in one page) and the current structure (lots of pages) are possible models for the organisation of this content. At the very least, the page titles need to exist as redirects (perfectly valid link targets). The idea that there could be a problem with WP:N or WP:RS is fairly laughable. —Kusma (t·c) 10:28, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep all Election of a Holy Roman emperor can't be not notable event. Articles will need improvement and references, but no doubt it's a notable event in history. For a while they all can be tagged as stub. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 13:51, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Andrew de Leslie (d. c. 1352)

Andrew de Leslie (d. c. 1352) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Andrew de Leslie (d. c. 1352)" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

fails WP:ANYBIO. Nominated for deletion following unexplained deprodding. Nothing found in a WP:BEFORE and the only source is a family history written by a member of the family so not independent. Domdeparis (talk) 10:02, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:52, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:52, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Delete - it looks to me like there is a a whole series of these going back the pedigree that lack any notability. With the exception of Andrew I, whose signing of the treaty of Arbroath makes him more notable than the rest, the others just receive passing reference, beyond the 1869 family history and online genealogy websites, none of which represent WP:RSs. I think a NOTGENEALOGY argument could be made for the majority of them: Norman de Leslie, Norino Leslie, Norman Leslie (died 1248), Malcolm Leslie. Agricolae (talk) 17:12, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikipedia is not meant to be a geneology. I would join Agricolae in supporting those other deletions as well.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:28, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
I would tend to agree with you the only really notable one is Andrew d. 1324. I'll see how this one goes and then bundle the others together as it is probably too late to bundle them now. Domdeparis (talk) 08:56, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Claims of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad

Claims of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Stats)
(Find sources: "Claims of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

WP:QUOTEFARM with only unreliable sources. There are many prophets that have made a number of claims that are debated but there is no Claims of Jesus, Claims of Muhammad. Subject is already covered on Mirza_Ghulam_Ahmad#His_claim that's why article is redundant. Orientls (talk) 10:46, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:40, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:40, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Medieval battles of the Bulgarian Army

Medieval battles of the Bulgarian Army (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Medieval battles of the Bulgarian Army" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

This is a POV fork of the similar list in Medieval Bulgarian army, which apparently was also included by an IP in Bulgarian Armed Forces; Bulgarian military history articles have long suffered from editors (usually IP addresses) who keep adding a whole list of spurious "battles" (unsurprisingly, mostly Bulgarian victories) without reference to any source, riddled with typos, inaccuracies, and sundry problems. The very inclusion of this list in the Bulgarian Armed Forces article, or the use of the modern coat of arms of Bulgaria betray the nationalist POV behind this, implicitly linking the Bulgarian Army of the present-day country to the medieval period. Constantine 15:44, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:07, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:07, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:07, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete - Not a single reference cited; I doubt if flagging the page would revel any.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 19:34, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete - no problems with seeing this deleted. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:04, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete Per nomination. No RS cites; no way to confirm information given. Kierzek (talk) 22:57, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Buckskinning

Buckskinning (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Buckskinning" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

PROD reverted without improvement. Buckskinning is an important hobby for many to be sure. The article was original research in 2008. A search today turns up blogs and people trying to sell magazines, books, and gear, but I saw no reliable independent sources. Rhadow (talk) 13:42, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep So now you're claiming that hobbies are another of the things on your list of "these topics just can't be notable". Andy Dingley (talk) 14:32, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep It's easy to find sources such as Preserving Western History. The nominator should not be using WP:PROD for "an important hobby" because that process is only for "uncontroversial deletion" and "must only be used if no opposition to the deletion is expected". Andrew D. (talk) 15:44, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep No Wikipedian reason given for deletion. So, it's a stub that needs work including sourcing. Many sources exist, and it certainly meets wp:notability and should be covered in Wikipedia. North8000 (talk) 03:53, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:05, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:05, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. Deletion is not cleanup. A quick google-book search shows at least six books with buckskinning in the title, and many-many hits with contents in the book. It seems a notable enough hobby. The article text seems reasonable, if stubby, and there is a pic - required article improvement seems to be limited to citing a source or two (after verifying the information is correct).Icewhiz (talk) 09:50, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Goodness me, this is the proverbial Keep per nom. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:17, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep no policy-based rationale for deletion. Lepricavark (talk) 16:50, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Robert Baudin

Robert Baudin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Robert Baudin" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Biography with notability issues and backed by just a couple of references, concentrating on one incident. There's no reliable source that goes into the details about his crime, apart from a couple of autobiographies that the individual wrote. MT TrainDiscuss 17:50, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 17:53, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 17:53, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. Besides his own 2 books (which might be grounds for AUTHOR, did not assess), he has received SIGCOV for his flying and counterfeiting - both in major newspapers and in books. He is also covered by the Sydney Crime Musuem [10], which would seem to indicate lasting signifcance.Icewhiz (talk) 20:46, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. There are numerous mentions of him in books other than his own, and sufficient coverage on him in newspapers and other sites (not just for the airplane stunt). These in addition to the Sydney Crime Museum would seem to merit encyclopedic inclusion. Since the person has been dead nearly 35 years it's not like this is a self-promotional article. SunChaser (talk) 05:45, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete -- A serial crook who wrote a book about his misdeeds and performed a stunt reported in national papers. Surely that is not enough to make him WP-notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:13, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Transformation of culture

Transformation of culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Transformation of culture" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

I hope I'm not breaking any rules with this nomination. Last time, we ended up with a no-consensus closure on account of an active merge discussion for this article and Culture Change. However, it seems that it's been decided the content of the articles are too different for salvaged pieces of this one to got into the other one. This article is pretty deep into essay territory and I think it would be easier to delete it and start over than try to fix it. TheDracologist (talk) 02:08, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:27, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:27, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:27, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

History of the regional distinctions of Spain

History of the regional distinctions of Spain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "History of the regional distinctions of Spain" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

I tagged the page History of the regional distinctions of Spain as essay-like long ago, but nobody takes action, and I find it too difficult to change it into an acceptable WP page. Most of the contents are still those included by the creator back in 2011. The creator hasn't been active also since 2011. --Jotamar (talk) 16:32, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. : Noyster (talk), 11:15, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:36, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:36, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:37, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Western guilt (concept)

Western guilt (concept) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Western guilt" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

I strongly urge editors to read this discussion before voting. This is not a simple case of quickly voting "per sources, per GNG". The comments by Pincrete and Malik Shabazz summarized most of the issues with this essay (not an encyclopedic article) better than I could. In particular, I recommend these comments by Pincrete which help explain some of the most blatant forms of synth and original research I have seen. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought; what we have here is not a notable concept but rather a crude selection of quotes that sometimes (surprisingly not always) happen to use "western" and "guilt" with no indication that they are related to one another. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:46, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:32, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:32, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:32, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. There may be a notable encyclopaedic topic lurking here in the form of postcolonial guilt. Some of the references might also be salvaged for white guilt. But in its current form, this article consists entirely of politically-slanted original synthesis that needs to be blown up and started over. E.M.Gregory's approach to sourcing clearly leaves a lot to be desired―there's a lot of keyword-search cherry picking, misrepresentation of what the sources say, and poor citation practices (e.g. broken links, unnecessary links to paywalls, citations to books without page references) that make verification difficult―but he is often successful in producing a veneer of thorough research that passes a casual inspection. I'd therefore second TheGracefulSlick in urging editors to look closely at what the references actually say, and read the discussions on the talk page, before !voting. – Joe (talk) 12:34, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
  • What personal attack has Joe Roe supposedly flung at you? You consistently engage in poor citation practices and he is merely bringing it to this discussion because this is arguably your worst case yet.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:20, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry if I've offended you E.M.Gregory, but I think at this point I am far from the only person who has noticed the irregularities in your use of sources. I stopped short of giving diffs because I thought that it would be taken as combative and distract from the issue at hand, but if I'm not mistaken there has been more than one ANI thread about it. In any case, I am only giving it as a reason for !voters to take a close look at the sources, which surely can't be a bad thing. – Joe (talk) 00:47, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup, and the way to resolve a content dispute (which is what we have here) is not deleting the article. The concept itself - is clearly notable - it is the subject of books and journal papers - so clearly Wikipedia should have an entry on this political/cultural concept. As for the article quality - including alleged SYNTH and OR - this should be addressed by editing the article. If need be - this article could be stubbed down to a five line paragraph explaining the concept (without a long list of examples) without difficulty.Icewhiz (talk) 13:03, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
    • If, as you assert, Icewhiz, the concept is the subject of books and journal papers, I have two questions. First, why is not a single one of those books or journal article cited as a source in the article or recommended as further reading? Second, could you please identify a few of those books and journal articles for me, because I'm too stupid to find them. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:59, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
      The epithet you chose does not describe you at all. Some sources:
      [11] Equality, the Third World, and Economic Delusion, Peter T. Bauer, 1981
      Bauer, Péter Tamás. "Western guilt and Third World poverty." Commentary 61.1 (1976): 31.
      Sanneh, Lamin. "Christian missions and the Western guilt complex." The Christian Century 104.11 (1987): 330-334.
      Leys, Ruth. From guilt to shame: Auschwitz and after. Princeton University Press, 2009.
      Diamond, Larry. "The democratic rollback: the resurgence of the predatory state." Foreign affairs (2008): 36-48.
      Akinade, Akintunde E. "The precarious agenda: Christian-Muslim relations in contemporary Nigeria." Journal of Islam and Christian Muslim Relations (2002).
      Ajami, Fouad. "The Global Logic of the Neoconservatives." World Politics 30.3 (1978): 450-468.
      [12] The Control Factor: Our Struggle to See the True Threat, Bill Siegel
      [13] Western Christians in Global Mission: What's the Role of the North American, Paul Borthwick.
      [14] From Subsistence to Exchange and Other Essays, by Lord Peter Tamas Bauer
      [15] Writing Anthropology: A Call for Uninhibited Methods, F. Bouchetoux
      [16] War, Guilt, and World Politics after World War II, Thomas U. Berger.
      And of course google-news shows contemporary usage of this term in this context by many different people.Icewhiz (talk) 07:25, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
That the term is sometimes used is not disputed, but is it used in a coherent way, such that it has a defined, or definable meaning? The 3 or 4 sources above which I looked at, had no more than passing mentions, which never defined the term. Nor is it clear that the various users are using the term in the manner defined in the article. For example, the brief mention in the The Christian Century, basically says Christian missions should feel "western guilt" for past presumptiousness and cultural arrogance, but should nonetheless continue to "spread the gospel". Does this bear any relationship whatsoever to the definition and examples in our article? This example sounds to me like typical christian contrition, (let's repent and do better) and to have nothing to do with a political concept. Pincrete (talk) 20:52, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm very disappointed, Icewhiz. That's a classic bait and switch. You wrote that "Western guilt" "is the subject of books and journal papers", but you haven't identified a single book or peer-reviewed academic journal paper about "Western guilt". (Commentary and The Christian Century are not journals by any stretch of the imagination.) Instead, you provided books, magazine articles, and journal papers that mention the phrase "Western guilt". That demonstrates that the concept is not notable. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:00, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
I apologize I do not live up to your lofty expectations, but I wouldn't call the long tracts by lord Peter Thomas Bauer (e.g. chapter 6 of [17] which is a 2000 Princeton University Press reprint of the 1976 commentary magazine piece (which is, actually, cited by quite a bit)) - a mention. By extension, your characterization of some of the others sources is not comprehensive.Icewhiz (talk) 08:57, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep A patently notable topic, which is why I created the article. No SYNTH required. Clear and congruent definitions of "western guilt" by Richard Wolin, Pascal Bruckner, Douglas Murray, Shelby Steele, and Sohrab Ahmari are already on the page. If editors want to argue that these definitions are not properly summarized in the lede, that discussion belongs on the talk page. However, Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup and Wikipedia:I just don't like it is not a valid argument for deletion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:48, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Note - I never nominated this essay for deletion for cleanup or because I don't like it. Those are straw man arguments. If any of the keep !voters cared to read it, my nom statement asserts this essay falls under what Wikipedia is not. Gregory created this personal essay by synthing together sources that sometimes use the term for different meaning and misrepresented others to push a POV. There is no established term known as "Western guilt" except in the mind of the essay's creator.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:24, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
    You both really should address content, not each other. Even if all you are saying about this article is true - the subject itself would still merit an article as it is clearly notable. It would be trivial to stub this down to a form that is not contestable.Icewhiz (talk) 22:35, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete If the term exists in any coherent form, it is clearly as a pejorative term used to denigrate the motives of those one disagrees with, rather than an objective phenomenon. I am not persuaded that it does have a commonly understood meaning, even in that limited pejorative sense. The article is simply a ragbag of uses, occasionally of the term, more often of related terms like "post-colonial guilt" which have been synthed together. Needless to say, none of the uses ever say "this is bunkum, the entirety of western liberal thinking and policies are NOT motivated by 'guilt' anymore than all conservative policies are motivated by racism and avarice". Pincrete (talk) 22:54, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete Performing a web search on a phrase and quoting the single occurrence of that phrase in a dozen books and articles is not a sound basis for an encyclopedia article. There has been no significant coverage of the concept of "Western guilt", which is why the subject fails the notability requirements. I recommend that editors read WP:NEO:

    Some neologisms can be in frequent use, and it may be possible to pull together many facts about a particular term and show evidence of its usage on the Internet or in larger society. To support an article about a particular term or concept, we must cite what reliable secondary sources say about the term or concept, not just sources that use the term (see use–mention distinction). An editor's personal observations and research (e.g. finding blogs, books, and articles that use the term rather than are about the term) are insufficient to support articles on neologisms because this may require analysis and synthesis of primary source material to advance a position, which is explicitly prohibited by the original research policy.

    Unfortunately, this is a compilation of sources that use the term "Western guilt" without a single source about "Western guilt". — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:59, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. The editor is an avid writer, who researches his material very well. His work is of great importance to this venue, IMHO. Naturally, whenever one conceives of an idea for a valid entry in this online encyclopedia, the first thing that he does is research the topic, perusing through the available sources that treat on the topic, and brings this information together by putting it into a readable form. There's nothing amiss in doing so. The sources cited are good; the subject-matter under discussion notable.Davidbena (talk) 03:13, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Davidbena I'm an avid writer too but I wouldn't use that as an excuse to create my own concept for an encyclopedic article. Can you explain what you meant by your comment? There is no established phenomenon called "Western guilt"; Wikipedia is not a publisher of personal essays. The sources were brought together by synth and misrepresentation. As I recommended in my nom statement, I strongly urge you to review the sources and the talk page discussion. The synth and OR is too blatant to ignore.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:47, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
"Shame" culture and "Guilt" culture were articulated by Dodds (1951). Discussing ancient Greek epics and drama, he traced an increasing sophistication in their development, from a conception of the world and the moral order as arbitrary and subject to the whim of the gods, through to a later understanding of the limits of moral responsibility. You may also wish to see JSTOR on this subject. Better still, check the search engine for its notability. Our co-editor apparently only wished to discuss one aspect of this "guilt" culture, namely, that found in western societies. It's legitimate.Davidbena (talk) 05:09, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
So any 'collective sense of guilt' found in, (or perceived by others to be 'found in') western societies, is, by definition 'Western guilt' is it? Regardless of cause? Jewish survivor guilt? People who feel UK and Europe should have done more in the 1930's to stop Nazism? German guilt over WWII? US citizens who don't feel good about the Vietnam war or UK citizens who are not proud of Bloody Sunday? Who decides what's in and what's out, because the sources don't seem to agree that this is a single defined, or definable entity. Pincrete (talk) 21:37, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete this is an essay comprised of original research, not an encyclopedic article. Lepricavark (talk) 06:07, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  • keep - icludes books as sources. meets wp:gng XavierItzm (talk) 12:49, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:44, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
  • delete per TNT would need to be completely written to comply with NPOV and SOAP. From a policy perspective, what is wrong with this page is that it is completely and narrowly POV. It treats the notion of "western guilt" from a single perspective that "Western guilt" is some self-flagellating and self-destructive notion that exists only in the minds (and cultural products of minds) of left wingers in the West. The sources were cherry-picked to accomplish this, so of course that is all it does. There is almost nothing here about the actual substrate of racist/sexist/colonial/postcolonial abuse that is the basis for the "guilt", and actually nothing from the POV of objects of "the West"'s actions (where is for example the voice of people like Frantz Fanon in this "article"?) There is almost no POV from people in "the West" and in the ROW who seek constructive ways of engagement that acknowledge the past and don't abnegate it.
What is driving people to call this an "essay" and to discuss SYN is the stringing-together of a narrow range of sources to generate this POV content. This is useless to anybody trying to think about the whole of "western guilt" (including the POV here). This has no place in WP as it stands.
It is as wrong-headed from stem to stern as many of the pages created by that Environmental Justice class we had to deal with last spring, that came here with a resolutely anti-Trump "message" to sell. We ended up deleting a bunch of them as well. Jytdog (talk) 21:56, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
As it stands, it is really a kind of POV fork of White privilege, Male privilege, Colonialism, Postcolonialism, etc all wrapped up in one POV package. Like I said, would need to be completely rewritten to be dialogue with the rest of WP instead of sticking out like a sore thumb. Jytdog (talk) 00:45, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Certainly the article can be improved, but Note that there is a great deal of serious scholarship cited in the article, and more can be added.
For example, Imperialism, Marxism and the Western Sense of Guilt, a subsection in Philosophy, politics and conservatism in the thought of Elie Kedourie, in which political philosopher Noël O'Sullivan unpacks Elie Kedourie's an analysis of the impact of western guilt on decolonization in the post-WWII era. (Kedourie thought empire had some positive aspects, and that nationalism and Marxism were radically dangerous.) He regarded Franz Fanon as representing a "fusion of nationalism and Marxism," But he was very specifically critical not of the fact of the end of empire, but of the fact that the then new phenomenon of western guilt over imperialism led France and Britain to wrap up their Empires in a "hasty and irresponsible" manner that led to bloodshed, economic collapse, and enormous suffering for the colonized peoples (in Algeria and elsewhere) that might have been averted.
The assertion that the concept of Western guilt lacks sources is simply mistaken. Nor can it be subsumed under white guilt; the two concepts intersect, but western guilt is broader, and, often as in O'Sullivan's analysis of Kedourie, about guilt as a driver of colonial and foreign policy.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:07, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Here, for example is a discussion of Frantz Fanon's thought on western guilt (the topic is the exploitation of the bodies of brown and black women and boys,) "According to Fanon, it was not enough to assign guilt to monstrous racism in Europe and North America, it was also necessary to face the shame of bourgeois barbarism in Africa and Asia..." p. 52, Sex Shame and the Single Life," Daniel McNeill, a chapter in American Shame: Stigma and the Body Politic, Myra Mendible, editor, Indiana University Press, 2016.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:10, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
You will note that my !vote did not call into question whether an article could be written on this. It could. This page would have to be completely rewritten to make it encyclopedic, specifically with regard to NPOV and SOAP. As it stands it is an essay that makes an argument that should be called "Why Western Guilt is a Bad Thing" and it should be deleted.
Perhaps you would be willing to draftify it and submit it through AfC when you think you have made it actually something approaching neutral? Perhaps the nominator would then agree to withdraw the nomination. Jytdog (talk) 15:35, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup. Do note that Frantz Fanon and Elie Kedourie - the sources I brought just above - are on opposite sides of this debate. The sources now in the article, distinguished academics with whom you disagree, are valid sources. The topic meets WP:SIGCOV. A content dispute is NOT an argument for deletion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:54, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
No one is saying deletion is cleanup. If you will not comprehend what Jytdog is discussing, that is fine. Wikipedia will be better off without this POV essay.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:51, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
The thing is a pig's ear and we cannot make a purse out if it. This is not like a stub that needs building out. It needs a teardown and rebuild. Jytdog (talk) 22:52, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Also it's far from clear to me that there is significant coverage. What the keep !voters have presented is a disparate collection of sources that use the term in passing (and some that don't use the term at all), and a few works by fringe, conservative authors that cover it as a coherent concept. I think it would be difficult to write an article that conformed to WP:NPOV unless additional, mainstream sources were found. – Joe (talk) 23:15, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Additional sources are myriad and include:
  • Lewis Samuel Feuer, Imperialism and the Anti-Imperialist Mind, Chapter IV: "The Imperialist Spirit and the Anti-Imperialist Mind", subhead "The Ideology of Imperialist Guilt", First section of chapter IV, p, 104 "Western peoples, it has been noted, have been peculiarly susceptible to feelings of guilt concerning their imperialist role. The guilt, it has sometimes been suggested, derives form the Christian myth of guilt and sin..." An entire chapter on imperialism and western guilt ensues. 1989, Routledge.
  • John Hobson, The Eurocentric Conception of World Politics; Western International Theory, 1760-2010 discusses "the West's 'colonial-racism guilt syndrome,' or what has been termed, 'post-imperial cringe.' In turn, the emergence of this syndrome was due in part to a series of intra-Western developments, which comprised the internalist critique of scientific racism within the academy." and more analysis of the "Western-racist imperialist guilt complex." p. 320, Cambridge University Press 2012.
  • Sarah Maddison, Postcolonial guilt and national identity: historical injustice and the Australian settler state, Journal for the Study of Race, Nation and Culture, Volume 18, 2012 - Issue 6
  • Post-colonial guilt has changed how European history is being taught January 2017 Hindustan Times.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:36, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Derrr .... almost none of these refer to 'Western guilt', and when they do, it is merely in passing. None of them tells us what it supposedly is, except of course it's a Very Very BAD thing. As M Shabazz says, these are sources USING the term not ABOUT the term.Pincrete (talk) 09:34, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Here Pincrete concretely insists that if a source such as Lewis Samuel Feuer's detailed 12-page section on "The Ideology of Imperialist Guilt" (in a book on The Imperialist Spirit and the Anti-Imperialist Mind, varies his language, sometimes using phrases like "Western peoples," or just plain "guilt" to discuss this concept in the course of a complex, scholarly discussion of Western guilt.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:08, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:TNT / WP:ADVOCACY. The page, as written, is not about the concept of Western guilt, but seems instead to innumerate types and instances of “Western guilt” without a coherent structure. The concept itself is multi-faceted, as it appears, referring at varying times to perceptions relating to colonialism, Holocaust, Christian missions, current migrant crisis, etc. The article is a mish-mash of these concepts and examples, resulting in WP:SYNTH. This leads me to conclude that it’s best deleted at this time, until it can be completely rewritten.
Separately, the argument “includes books as sources” is not convincing; I could probably find any combination of words in a book and synthesise an article out of them, or, alternatively, write an article about "Post-colonial guilt", based on the same sources. There’s also some fringe element to the subject, as in: The Control Factor: Our Struggle to See the True Threat - Page 94 by Bill Siegel – 2012: “White or Western Guilt usually involves large wealth transfers. Whether it is directed at Great Society programs or aid for lesser-developed countries, much of the game of guilt revolves around extracting money.” Etc.
So, I would be especially careful when developing such an article. In summary, there may be a notable topic here somewhere, but this article ain’t it. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:55, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Note that Siegel is not cite din the article, and that fringe thinkers can be removed from articles.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:42, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. A Google Scholar search of "Western guilt" -"western guilt culture" (which brings up too many false positives which refer to works following Ruth Benedict's classification schema), brings up 900 academic papers which use the term, and from a quick perusal of some of them, many of them do use in a cohesive way, which would point towards this meeting WP:GNG (e.g. [18][19]. Problems with articles on notable topics should be kept and the problems resolved through talk page discussion/editing, and if the synthesis is really that big of issue, cutting it down..---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 08:04, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Aryk

Aryk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Aryk" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Article doesn't cite any sources, has been abandoned for a long time and isn't really needed ReeceTheHawk (talk) 10:37, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 12:06, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 12:06, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 12:06, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Central Asia-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 12:06, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. A perfectly valid stub. Sources for expansion can be found in the other language versions of this page, and we have no deadline. – Joe (talk) 12:07, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Aqueduct (water supply). I was able to find some sources - e.g. [20] [21] - but all they basically say is that these are small to medium sized aqueducts or irrigation ditches/canals in central Asia - so basically this is an alternative name for aqueduct. Other wikis are similarly stubby with the exception of ru.wiki (which names 3 sources) that covers irrigation in central Asia a bit more than here (but still relatively short). Aryk being a local name of the same global thing, having a separate stubby article doesn't make sense.Icewhiz (talk) 13:59, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Merge but I am trying to find the right target. Both irrigation and surface irrigation are currently too general. Target currently suggested is not ideal: its ancient section deals with the subject by country, not by method. We could do with a general Ancient irrigation systems article providing an overview of this; qanat; levada and a few more. This is a list in Aqueduct, but that is a only dab-page. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:58, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Acequia, an article about this same concept, using the name derived from Spanish. Such irrigation features are common around the world, and have different names in different languages, but the Turkish variety described in this article appears no different than the concept described at acequia. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 18:14, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment. I think it's obvious that these aren't quite coterminous with aqueduct. ru:Арык describes them as somewhere between aqueducts, irrigation channels, and a drainage ditch, and also mentions that they have independent history going back 3000 years. Its sources include two notable encyclopaedias (ESBE and UzSE) in which aryks have a separate entry (as does ruwiki, see ru:Акведук). I therefore don't think aqueduct is a good merge target at all. And while I do see the point in reducing the profusion of articles on this topic, we also have acequia, qanat, levada, leat, ditch, rill, flume, rhyne, nullah, and Kunstgraben—all covering similar technologies in different cultures—so I can't see why aryk should be singled out for merging, or why acequia, which exclusively covers Spanish and North American examples, would be a good redirect target. – Joe (talk) 18:28, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
    You might be thinking of Roman aqueduct when imagining Aqueduct (water supply) - however an aqueduct is any man made structure, just about, that conveys water - including channels and ditches.Icewhiz (talk) 13:00, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm aware of that. I think my point about there being many distinct, culturally-specific technologies under the umbrella of "aqueducts", and it not necessarily being a good idea to merge them all, stands. – Joe (talk) 14:00, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
It seems to me from what I saw in the sources, that Aryk covers a whole range of small to medium sized aqueduct types - I'm not sure these have a cultural commonality (separate from other regions) other than being the regional term.Icewhiz (talk) 14:08, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge or redirect where?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  20:55, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep Valid stub article.Egaoblai (talk) 03:27, 21 November 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Egaoblai (talkcontribs) 03:19, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete — There are no sources in the article. I am not concerned about notability or anything but that this may actually be false information. There are not enough reliable sources to determine that the word "aryk" is indeed an English word that describes some sort of aqueduct. This leads me to believe that it is simply a transliteration of the word from Russian or some other language. Cannot be an article if there are not enough articles to prove that it is actually a thing! NikolaiHo☎️ 04:21, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
@Nikolaiho: It is a transliteration of a word in Russian and numerous Turkic languages. Why would that be a problem? I have mentioned several sources above, and deletion discussions should be based on the existence of sources not the current state of citation, but for clarity I have just added them to article. – Joe (talk) 11:05, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Joe Roe, a transliterated word should not have an article unless it is an accepted word in the English language or is a very well known word, ie. it has a definition in an English dictionary or is very popular (such as Bonjour). The citations don't ascertain the fact that it is an English word. NikolaiHo☎️ 03:42, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
@Nikolaiho: That's not true. We are a global encyclopaedia that happens to be written in the English language, not an encyclopaedia exclusively of the English language. Articles can be based on sources in any language. – Joe (talk) 10:27, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep -- a valid stub, with sufficient sources to sustain it. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:14, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

History Proposed deletions

History categories

for occasional archiving



Proposals

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Social_science&oldid=811391879"
This content was retrieved from Wikipedia : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Social_science
This page is based on the copyrighted Wikipedia article "Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Social science"; it is used under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA). You may redistribute it, verbatim or modified, providing that you comply with the terms of the CC-BY-SA