The result was delete. Fenix down ( talk) 06:08, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
Does not meet WP:GNG. KKKNL1488 (talk) 01:57, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. There's clearly no consensus to delete. I've gone back and forth on whether the keep arguments are really solid enough to call a consensus. I've written this closing statement several times already, each time as I went back to double-check what I'd written against the arguments, I changed my mind. So, I guess that really means NC is the right call. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:11, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
Glauben können wie du is one of approximately 700 hymns [a] published in the widely used Catholic hymnal the Gotteslob, used in the Catholic Church in German-speaking countries. It can be seen in this List of German hymns on de-wiki under 'G'. (For some reason, I don't see it listed here, but it is perhaps not the right regional version.) As previously noted on the article Talk page in this Notability discussion, this article fails WP:GNG. The article creator has done a good job of finding pretty much every scrap of information available about this hymn, but it still doesn't satisfy the Notability criteria. As mentioned at that discussion, some of the content may be usable at List of hymns in the German Catholic common hymnal, or at the composer's article; although as Gerda points out, there may be an WP:UNDUE issue in including too much information there. But that is a question for those articles, and needn't be taken up here. I sympathize with Gerda's interest, knowledge, and passion for the topic, but that's simply not how we base decisions on what topics are notable enough for the encyclopedia. An English equivalent of de:Liste von Kirchenliedern, de:Liste der Kirchenlieder im Evangelischen Gesangbuch, or de:Liste der Gesänge im Stammteil des Gotteslobs would be a great use of Gerda's talents, but this article should be deleted as not notable. Mathglot ( talk) 21:44, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Notes
Above, Mendaliv asked about the quality of the sources. So, I thought I would go over them (the numbers are wikilinks):
full text of Pastor's summary for October 2018 (
link)
|
---|
October is the second, major, month of Mary of the year. In it, the Blessed Mother is especially honored by the rosary prayer, in which we look at the stages of life that connect her most with her Son – from proclamation about the Cross and Resurrection, to her acceptance and coronation in Heaven. But before meditating on these stages of life, the Rosary Prayer asks for faith, hope, and love so that we can properly accept these thoughts and carry them into our own lives. This fits the song "Glauben können wie du" (Believing like you do), which I would like to introduce you to today. It can be found under number 885. Just under ten years ago, Franciscan priest Helmut Schlegel wrote this modern Marian song, the content of which goes back to the Bible. It was then set to music by Church musician Joachim Raabe. Faith, Hope and Love – the three great words are filled with life herein. Each stanza brings to mind a quote from Mary, "announced" by a radiant A major chord immediately before it. Faith has its origin in listening to the Word of God. From this we have the power to affirm life with all its ups and downs, "as God gave me" and thus – even in the dark hours of life – to recognize and confess with Mary: "The Great things He (God) has done." Hope is not some fantasy vision of a better world, but rather, it begins out of Faith by doing what is humanly possible today. That may always seem to be too little, to us. But then the Blessed Mother reminds us through her words of the miracle at the wedding at Cana, encourages us to trust her Son, "What He says to you, do that!" Finally, love opens a view of the world, makes us recognize the Creator in every creature. So we cannot remain indifferent to what is happening around us. But that means more than just compassion. Real love brings one to be of service to others; "May it be done for me according to your Word." That's what Mary spelled out with her life. Her example teaches us to pray: "That is how I want to believe, hope and love; Mary." Konrad Perabo, Pastor |
The most substantial of these sources are #1, and #6. Note that Google translate does a pretty decent job of translating running text in these sources, sufficient to give the gist of the content. If there are any particular passages of interest needed, I'll be happy to translate them. Mathglot ( talk) 00:34, 24 August 2019 (UTC) updated to add material to #6; by Mathglot ( talk) 17:15, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
An issue possibly affecting evaluation of this Afd has been raised here. Mathglot ( talk) 21:37, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Normally, I would have closed this as Redirect, but Epinoia's arguments convinced me that delete makes more sense. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:28, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
I found no significant coverage, mostly routine run of the mill coverage. Fails WP:CORP. SL93 ( talk) 18:44, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
The result was Delete. I would wonder if List of Pennsylvania fire departments should exist, given that almost none(if not none) of the list members have standalone articles, which I why I did not redirect. 331dot ( talk) 19:28, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
With all due respect, I do not see how this is notable. Ymblanter ( talk) 18:36, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
The result was keep. Fenix down ( talk) 06:16, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
Subject fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY, never played in a WP:FPL. MYS 77 ✉ 18:15, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 18:47, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
Only references are to its own websites. Fundamentally a BLP. Rathfelder ( talk) 18:07, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 20:15, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
School only went through eighth grade, so it was not a high school. The only independent coverage we have of this school was the article about it shutting down. This seems to fail either the general or school-specific measures of notability. — C.Fred ( talk) 17:57, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
The result was keep Nominator has withdrawn on the basis of finding adequate sourcing. (non-admin closure) AmericanAir88( talk) 18:30, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
At least one of the sources says nothing a about this conflict as far as I can tell. Slatersteven ( talk) 17:13, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. It seems like the sole keep argument does not actually establish notability nor does it indicate that the content is needed anywhere. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 20:16, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
Small political party with no elected officers or noteworthy performances. Tags have existed on this article for years Article is sourced almost exclusively to the party itself; per WP:ORGCRIT, political parties must have received significant, non-trivial coverage in multiple independent reliable secondary sources - this article fails this. The only two citations to non-IAP sources are ballotaccessnews.com (a WordPress blog) and St. George’s News, an online free website that is not a newspaper and more or less seems to be an ad for the IAP. There is a link to an article from the Salt Lake Tribune, but this is not significant coverage: it merely documents that the party exists and that it wanted to be on the ballot. Per wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources, ThoughtCo is a self-published source, again failing our standards for citations. This party simply doesn’t seem to be notable and should be deleted. Toa Nidhiki05 12:30, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
I doubt anyone would be confusedAt least, if this article did not spend significant space on the unrelated NV party, confusion would be much less likely. -- JBL ( talk) 13:15, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 20:17, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
These sublists of National Film Registry are pretty useless content forks. The whole point of having sortable lists is that you can sort the whole list, not just a sublist. People will typically be interested in the list of, say, films on the National Film Registry that were released in the 1960s. Nobody is interested in knowing the films on the National Film Registry that were released in the 1960s and whose title begins with a B. Spinning off these sublists (of a featured list no less!) accomplishes nothing. We want to direct our readers to the most likely to be useful article and that is clearly National Film Registry. Furthermore, keeping these lists doubles the work necessary to keep the info up to date. Pichpich ( talk) 16:51, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
The result was draftified. Procedural close, the article has been moved to the draft-space, again. Given the comments in this, and previous AfD, next time the article should go through "articles for creation process"; rather than being published directly. Regards, —usernamekiran (talk) 20:24, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
Per previous AFD (closed procedurally): "Articles looks like promo for the subject and his company. Current sourcing is a couple of entries in directories, a passing mention, and his company's website - can't find any better sourcing - fails WP:BASIC." Previous close was making the article a draft - but it hasn't improved at all. WP:BEFORE shows nearly no mainstream coverage. Current coverage is largely blockchain sites and other non-RSes. David Gerard ( talk) 16:32, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Vanamonde ( Talk) 03:36, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
This article is (and I believe always will be) an incomplete list. A major issue is already going to be presented in defining what a "rally" is. Many events that might be called rallies are not advertised as such. Warren, for instance, hosts many gatherings called "organizing events" and "town halls", but these appear to be rallies. SecretName101 ( talk) 16:21, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
The result was keep. Procedural keep. Apart from most people expressing some form of "keep" opinion, this is a topic that is better discussed on the talkpage, not at AfD. Renaming, restructuring, things like that. Tone 08:37, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
This AfD might strike people as odd. At first blush, the page seems like an anodyne piece of demographic interest, no different to "list of Native American members of Congress." So why the AfD? I ask you to bear with me because it will take some time to explain my rationales, although they are rock-solid.
In sum: the page must be deleted because it fails (and will inevitably fail, as I argue below) the standards of the encyclopedia in terms of WP:V and WP:RS.
There are two key ways in which the page fails (and will inevitably fail) WP:V and WP:RS. First, the page relies on WP:OR, rather than reliable sources, to determine who is Middle Eastern. Second, the page relies on WP:OR, rather than reliable sources, to determine who is Arab. As I will show, the problem of OR is unfixable because (due to the nature of the definition of “Middle Eastern," which unlike, e.g., "sub-Saharan African" is extremely fuzzy and controversial) it is impossible to verify the claims as to who is Middle Eastern. I propose the deletion of the page and the creation of new pages with the same information that do not violate WP:V and WP:RS.
Unverified/OR claims to as who is Middle Eastern
The page relies on WP:OR to determine who is Middle Eastern. People of Iranian, Armenian, and Georgian descent (countries often included in the Middle East) and Ashkenazi Jews (who are partially descended from the Levant, and often identify with their ancestral roots), are excluded for no reason but OR, despite being considered "Middle Eastern Americans" on the wikipedia page on that subject, as well as being considered as such by the US Census Bureau.
There are no sources cited in the page as to which of the Congresspersons are Middle Eastern, and since the definition of the Middle East itself is fuzzy and controversial, there will never be such sources. (To illustrate how fuzzy the region is: many commentators would consider Turkey Middle Eastern, others would say it’s part of Europe; many would include Armenia and Georgia while others would not; many would include Sudan, and others would not. Others still would exclude the Levant and all countries West of the Gulf.) Following the census definition would not add any additional clarity; this too is controversial and was on the verge of being changed in 2016, to exclude Armenians and Georgians.
The subjectivity of the definition of Middle Eastern leads to an inevitable problem of lack of verifiability. This problem is showcased by the completely OR talk page debates about who does or does not “count” as Middle Eastern, as well as the absence of reliable sources in the article. In particular, the editor User:AuH2ORepublican has been active in removing former members of Congress of Armenian and Jewish descent from the page, based on nothing but OR. As silly and vulgar as this kind of amateur ethnic line-drawing is, no one can say AuH20 is "wrong" in his definition of Middle Eastern, and his exclusion of Armenians and Jews therefrom. And this is exactly my point: There is no way to present a verifiable, RS-supported list of "Middle Eastern Congresspeople," so it must be deleted.
Unverified/OR Claims to as who is Arab, which contradict the non-Arab identity of those cited as Arabs
There is an even more glaring and embarrassing OR/WP:V problem: the overwhelming majority of the people on this page didn’t/don’t identify as Arab, yet we are labeling them as such based on our own opinions about who should be considered Arabs. Specifically, the vast majority of the people on the page are Lebanese Christians. This ethnic group tends not to identify as Arab (see: /info/en/?search=Lebanese_people#Identity). It is extremely disrespectful to label them as “Arabs”, not to mention an expression of OR and inaccurate on the merits in most if not all of these cases.
So the page, in implicitly rejecting the ethnic identities of the Lebanese Christians (and instead insisting that we are Arabs, contrary to our identity and also contrary to genetic testing showing we are more closely related to Mediterranean Europeans than Gulf Arabs or North Africans) is not only a failure in terms of WP:RS and WP:V, but offensive, insofar as it imposes an ethnic identity on people which they do not or didn’t accept.
Again, the editor User:AuH2ORepublican has been active in insisting that Congresspersons of partial or full Lebanese descent be labeled "Arabs" and included on this page, stating that it is irrelevant whether these people identify as Arab, and they must be included on the page of Arabs elected to the Congress. He cites no sources for his OR view that we (Lebanese Christians) are Arabs regardless of how we identify. I don't accuse him of bad faith, but I instead cite him as an expression of how unverifiable and OR-based the assertions on the page are.
Proposal
So, my proposal? Delete this page (on grounds of WP:V and WP:RS, as described above) and create a new page for "Arab American Congress members," that is not combined with the vast and nebulous category “Middle Eastern congresspersons.” There we should list anyone who 1) identifies as Arab and 2) is fully or partially descended from an Arabic speaking country. (For example, Ilhan Omar is from Somalia where Arabic is one of the official languages; since she identifies as Arab we should include her, but we shouldn’t automatically include all future Somali-American Congresspersons in this category, unless they identify as such, since many Somali people reject an Arab identity.) That will solve the problems of OR, V, and offensiveness.
I don’t think we should re-create a “Middle Eastern Congressmembers” page because the category is too broad and fuzzy and diverse to be descriptively useful, and will inevitably lead to problems of verifiability. People who are interested in the subject of American representatives from the region should instead create pages like “List of Armenian-American congressmembers” or “List of Lebanese-American Congressmembers” or “list of Egyptian-American Congresspersons”, which can have all of this information and will not have to rely on OR. GergisBaki ( talk) 17:56, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
This article was created after a British editor, based on how the term "Asian" is used in the UK (but unfamiliar with how the term is used in the U.S.), wanted to add Arab-American members of Congress to the article on Asian-American (and Pacific-Islander) members of Congress. I recommended to him, and he accepted, adding "and Middle-Eastern Americans" to the title because otherwise it would exclude persons from Arab countries who are not Arab speakers, such as persons of Assyrian (aka Chaldean), Turkish, Persian, Kurdish, etc. descent.
While Arab Americans are not considered ethnic minorities under U.S. federal law and do not comprise an individual category under the U.S. Census, they nevertheless are deemed--by themselves and by society writ large--as an ethnicity within the Caucasian race, with use of the Arabic language by their forebears and certain traditions and cultural norms being the main points of commonality. While sub-groups within the Arab diaspora sometimes prefer to focus on differences between the groups--no one claims that there are no differences between Lebanese Christians and Saudi Arabian Muslims--the term "Arab American" is one that generally is used to describe the descendants of all such peoples.
I do not claim to be an expert on sociological characteristics of descendants of Lebanese Christians, but, anecdotally, I can tell you that my grandfather, who was the child of Lebanese Christians from the Zgartha/Eden region of North Lebanon, considered himself an Arab American. So does my father-in-law, also the child of Lebanese Christians from (a different part of) North Lebanon. It isn't that they didn't or don't acknowledge the differences among Arab sub-groups, or that they ignore that they descended from Phoenicians while people from, say, Yemen likely didn't, but they still considered all Arabic-speaking peoples to be fellow Arabs. This dichotomy is no different from that of Cuban-Americans who consider people from other parts of Latin-Americans to be fellow Latinos despite recognizing that Argentines and Hondurans and Cubans do not have identical cultures.
As for GergisBaki's characterization of the removal by myself and other editors of edits in which persons with non-Arab and non-Middle Eastern ancestry (such as Armenians from the Caucasus, and European Jews who immigrated in the 1930s to what later became the State of Israel) had been included in the article, such decisions were taken by consensus, with discussion in the Talk page. If the issue of including "Middle Eastern" in the title (so as not to exclude Assyrians and such) is creating more controversy than such article can withstand, then I guess that "Middle Eastern" can be excised from the title and only persons of Arab ancestry would be included (which would exclude Congressman Benjamin and Congresswoman Eshoo, as well as future non-Arab Middle Easterners in Congress), but certainly it wouldn't be grounds to delete the entire article.
In addition, it would be futile (and a violation of NPOV) to try to establish whether an American of Lebanese descent "identifies as Arab American" (particularly when we're talking about people long dead), as GergisBaki proposes, just as it would be inappropriate to second-guess the Latino bona fides of a Mexican-American who is proud of his Mexican heritage but is not into Pan-Hispanicism. There shouldn't be a test prepared by an editor with a particular POV to determine whether a descendant of an Arab-speaking people "truly is" an Arab.
So that's my two-cents' worth on this issue. As always, I welcome the opinion of other editors interested in this article. AuH2ORepublican ( talk) 19:49, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
So, @ Steeletrap, your problem is with the word "Arab" (and "Middle Eastern," of course). In that case, let's just call the article "List of Arab-American, Lebanese-American and Assyrian-American Members of Congress" and avoid the whole imbroglio.
Your proposal to obtain a statement from members of Congress as to whether they identify with the word "Arab" seems rather silly, particularly when it comes to the dead ones. And why do you assume that Lebanese-Americans don't want to be listed in an article about Arab-Americans? Why not include them but let those who wish to opt out to say that they should be removed? It is biased to assume, with no evidence whatsoever, that a particular Lebanese American rejects the label "Arab American" just because many Lebanese Christians wish to differentiate themselves from Arab Muslims. @ GergisBaki twice removed from the article's introduction a factual statement about Senator James Abourezk, a child of Lebanese Christians, being the first Arab American to serve in the U.S. Senate, because "Lebanese don't consider themselves Arabs." Now, Senator Abourezk was one of two co-founders (among with James Zogby) of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (see https://www.huffpost.com/entry/what-american-hustle-does_b_4541307?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly9lbi53aWtpcGVkaWEub3JnLw&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAIJWRuk7hGpIa09XQWkU0JS3x5bf7urSF0BC-dWuJloLj1RIvo_VRsjVNUwcsfvY2iFcGK8jDwdDIbf_t2nsOKNjbFa4m8UKfnXFza7lGyPUovnu3uyzI022X3_FAx-dW6FnT4zkWMj2eHujvw639zyXUsgxcVFEOGhRzQMuixaV), but I guess that he's a Lebanese Christian and thus not a real Arab. (Do you know how I learned that about Abourezk? I went to his Wikipedia article and clicked on one of the sources cited therein.)
Call me a "PoV pusher" if you wish, but I'm not the one trying to exclude Lebanese Americans from an article based on some subjective standard. If you don't like the term "Arab-American" as applied to Lebanese Americans, then let's add "Lebanese-Americans" to the title and settle this once and for all. And if we add "Assyrian-American" as well, and, when a Kurdish American, etc., is elected to Congress, add such other Middle-Eastern ethnicities to the title as are agreed by consensus, then we can get to the same place without inviting controversy. A rose by any other name still smells as sweet. AuH2ORepublican ( talk) 22:38, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
The threshold issue is whether descendants from native inhabitants of Arab countries are a distinct enough group that a list of those of them who have served in Congress is a matter worthy of an encyclopedia article. If the consensus is that such an article should exist, the issues remaining are (i) which descendants of such native inhabitants of Arab countries should be so listed and (ii) what do we call the article?
Regarding the first question, it seems wrong to me to say that an Arabic-speaker from Syria or Iraq should be included but a Neo-Aramaic speaker from Syria or Iraq shouldn't. Assyrians/Chaldeans have lived in those countries for millennia and, when they emigrate to the United States, they face many of the same issues as do Arabic-speakers from such countries. Assyrians/Chaldeans are native inhabitants of Arab countries, and I don't think that they should be excluded from the article.
I also wholly oppose the notion that only such Lebanese as taken an affirmative act to "identify as Arab" (whatever that means) should be included in the article. The vibrant Arab community in Dearborn, MI was built by Lebanese and Syrians who thought of themselves as Lebanese or Syrian first and Arab as an afterthought, but without them the more recent pan-Arab immigrants would have been starting out from scratch. If a Sunni thinks of himself as a Sunni first and as a Muslin second, that does not make him any less Muslim; the same holds for persons from Arab countries whose main loyalty is to their particular country or tribe. (This reminds me of Lawrence of Arabia, when Anthony Quinn's character tells Lawrence that he doesn't know what an Arab is, but rattles off the names of a half-dozen tribes within Saudi Arabia, implying that their loyalty was only to the tribe.) In any event, it is easy to confirm that a person's ancestors emigrated from an Arab country, and much harder to tell whether he or she "identifies as Arab" irrespective of the subjective standard that one imposed. I would stick to objective criteria.
As for the second question, to avoid the term "Middle Easterner" (which, unbeknownst to me, has fallen into disfavor, and which leads to controversy due to changing definitions of the term), and in order to make sure that all Lebanese-Americans and Syrian-Americans are included without the need for a subjective litmus test, perhaps we should retitle the article "List of Lebanese-Americans, Syrian-Americans, Palestinian-Americans and Assyrian-Americans in Congress" and add a new demonym to the title whenever someone from a different ethnicity from the Arab World is added. (Somalia is not an Arab country, and IMHO Congresswoman Omar shouldn't be in the article, but there was consensus that she should be included and thus she was; by changing the name there would be no doubt that she should be excluded.)
What do other editors think? AuH2ORepublican ( talk) 17:50, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
@ George Al-Shami, you wrote "[t]he problem with that title is that it would have to be periodically updated if a Jordanian or Egyptian American gets elected to the Congress." You are absolutely correct, but if that's what it takes to make everyone happy, I think that it's worth going through that extra trouble when someone whose ancestors came from another Arab country is elected to Congress. I would not recommend calling the article "List of descendants from Arabic-speaking Americans in the United States Congress" because not only would it exclude Assyrians/Chaldeans, but it also could be deemed to include someone with a British father who had learned Arabic while in foreign service or something. Moreover, you'd always have some wise-ass say "Congressman X was born in Michigan to Arabic-speaking parents from Syria, but his parents never became U.S. citizens, so the Congressman isn't a descendant of an Arabic-speaking *American*. More seriously, it could be used to exclude someone whose Lebanese or Palestinian parents emigrated to South America or Central America but never to the U.S.--for example, had Rashida Tlaib been born in Nicaragua, where her Palestinian parents first emigrated, and moved to the U.S. on her own as a teenager, then she would not descend from Arabic-speaking Americans yet clearly would be a Palestinian-American once she was naturalized. AuH2ORepublican ( talk) 20:46, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Al Ameer, I have absolutely no problem using the term "Arab Americans" to refer to what the Census Bureau considers Arab Americans (which certainly includes Lebanese). The only reason that I suggested the more cumbersome route of listing each individual Arab sub-group in the title is because several editors are advocating for the deletion of the article if it refers to Lebanese Americans as "Arab Americans" absent their specific and public self-identification as "Arab Americans." So if we can reach a consensus that Lebanese-American congressmen would be included under the term "Arab-American congressmen," then separately listing "Lebanese-American," "Palestinian-American," etc. in the title would be unnecessary.
As for Assyrian Americans, I am well aware that they are not Arab Americans under any plausible definition of the term. That being said, their ancestors are native residents of Arab countries, and the immigrant experience of, say, a Syrian Christian is not markedly different if he's an Assyrian or if he's an Arab. For these reasons, I think that they should be included in the article. If the consensus is that they should be removed, then so be it, but if they are to be kept in the article then I propose that "Assyrian-American" be added to the title, given that the term "Arab American" does not encompass Assyrian Americans while "Middle Eastern American" is overbroad and problematic.
Somali Americans, on the other hand, are neither Arabs nor descendants of native peoples of Arab countries (most Somalis have some Arab admixture in their ancestry, but it's from a millennium ago), have a very different immigrant experience from Arabs and Assyrians/Chaldeans, and should not be included in the article (although they are included in the articles on African-American members of Congress). One thing that is clear from this discussion is that there is a consensus that Congresswoman Omar should not be included in this article. AuH2ORepublican ( talk) 16:04, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
@ GergisBaki, with all due respect, if only such Lebanese as "self-identify as Arab" to your satisfaction are included in the article, the correct name for the article should be "List of Pan-Arabists in the U.S. Congress," and such article would not be appropriate for an encyclopedia. Lebanon is an Arab country and the U.S. Census Bureau classifies Lebanese as an Arab ethnicity, so one would be deviating from NPOV, and manufacturing a controversy where none exists, were one to exclude Lebanese-Americans from the article based on their individual points of view regarding Arab identity. Your point regarding how many Lebanese Christians nowadays do not describe themselves as "Arabs" is well taken, but the way to deal with that reality is to add a sentence to the introductory paragraph explaining that those listed in the article are descendants from immigrants from Arab countries (or immigrants from such countries themselves) and that inclusion on the list should not be understood to constitute an assertion regarding such individuals' self-identification as Arabs. AuH2ORepublican ( talk) 15:41, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
I composed this response prior to seeing Al Ameer's comment, so my apologies if there's an overlap between what the two of us wrote:
GergisBaki, you are engaged in POV by trying to divide people as "real Arabs" and "non-Pan-Arab-identifying (according to your personal criteria)" instead of using the definition of "Arab American" generally used in the United States (the article, after all, is about U.S. congressmen) and officially promulgated by the U.S. Census Bureau. As Al Ameer wrote in this very page, "The U.S. Census groups Syrians, Lebanese and Palestinians as subcategories of "Arab" so it wouldn't be "original research" to say that Syrian, Lebanese and Palestinian Americans are Arab Americans." This is evident from the census forms themselves: The census invites people to report Arab ethnicity, and to sublist more specific Arab ethnicities, and includes "Lebanese" in the examples of more specific Arab ethnicities. Moreover, the Census Bureau has long classified persons who list "Lebanese" (or Syrian, Palestinian, etc.) as "Arab" in its population reports. See, e.g., https://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/censr-21.pdf. In other words, the U.S. Census Bureau classifies someone who identifies as Lebanese as an "Arab," without an additional litmus test or shibboleth. So by excluding those who claim Lebanese ancestry from the definition of "Arab" unless they jump through the hoops that you have concocted, it is you who is engaging in Original Research and/or Synthesis.
Besides, even if you got a consensus and managed to turn the article into a list of U.S. congressmen who publicly have identified as Pan-Arab (which I insist would not be an appropriate article due to its insurmountable POV components, not to mention that if would fail notability), it will be exceedingly difficult for you to determine whether the Arab-American congressmen in the list "self-identify as Arab" even if you came up with an objective definition of what "self-identifying as an Arab" means (although from the sound of it you mean @identifying as a Pan-Arabist"). People don't necessarily sign up with Arab-American groups, particularly those with a political agenda; heck, you mentioned the "AAS" as if it were some sort of invaluable resource, and I've never even heard of it. And how would you deal with Lebanese-American congressmen who died 20-30 years ago? You already stuck your foot in your mouth when you edited the main article to remove a reference to James Abourezk as the first Arab-American U.S. Senator because he's Lebanese and there was no evidence that he "self-identified" as Arab American, yet Abourezk founded the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee in 1980. If you couldn't bother to take a minute to read Abourezk's Wikipedia article, how are you going to determine that all of those other congressmen truly "self-identify as Arab"? And if you do spend hours poring through public statements and private correspondence of every Lebanese-American (and Syrian-American and Palestinian-American, I assume, or are they exempt from your suspicions?) ever to have served in Congress, how in the world would that not constitute Original Research?
Finally, you appear to be obsessed with the question of race, which is wholly irrelevant to this discussion. Arabs, as a group, are classified as white by the U.S. Census Bureau, but if the Census Bureau turned around and classified Arabs as "Asian or Pacific Islander" it would not make any difference in who is an Arab. (BTW, U.S. immigration laws originally classified Arabs as Asians, and thus subject to immigration restrictions, until Lebanese and Syrians--the founders of the Arab-American community--convinced the government to classify Arabs as white.) If you wish to argue that not every Arab is white, I'm not going to disagree with you, particularly given that Southern Egyptians speak Arabic and consider the selves (and are considered by others to be) Arabs while having substantial sub-Saharan African admixture for historical reasons. But, again, that is neither here nor there. What is ridiculous for you to claim is that my blue-eyed, white-skinned Palestinian Muslim friend is not white because he's undisputedly an Arab and thus can't be white, and then to apply that same faulty logic to coaim that indisputedly white Lebanese cannot be Arabs because Arabs are not white. You can't redefine the word "Arab" to mean "dark-skinned Arab" and then assert that Lebanese who (for obvious reasons) don't classify themselves as "dark-skinned Arabs" thus are not "Arabs." AuH2ORepublican ( talk) 14:04, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
I don't really edit on Wikipedia im just a regular guy but this shouldn't be an Arab purity text, this is about people with links to the Arabworld, that includes Lebs, Somalis, and any other Arab League member state, there is also another label you can go by Semitic/Hamitic or Afro-Asiatic like the language family which again includes all the people discussed here plus Jews. 2600:1700:4460:41A0:FF:5866:3DCA:7657 ( talk) 23:32, 2 August 2019 (UTC)randomguy
The result was keep. Total keep consensus based on sourcing. (non-admin closure) AmericanAir88( talk) 19:56, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
Fails WP:NORG. No reliable secondary sources completely independent of the subject that discuss it in detail John from Idegon ( talk) 15:53, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
The result was merge to WAY 79. Drmies ( talk) 17:12, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
Fails WP:BK. The only sources for which the book series is the subject are all sale sites. Willbb234 Talk (please {{ ping}} me in replies) 15:36, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Comment page deleted by creator, and made redirect page. Fairly pointless afd, it could have been much easier by discussion first. Afd first is never a very good idea. Other editors might have other solutions. JarrahTree 23:55, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Comment - please read this! Page content has in effect been merged into parent article - the nominator has made a valid point about this item, however, to keep this afd open, when the creator of the article agrees with its removal, an WP:AGF removal of the Afd, and a blank and Prod is within process, to do so. JarrahTree 07:56, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
JarrahTree, if "hohum" means "this content merged from Sesquicentenary Celebrations Series, which is what you say here and what I think you are saying on the nominator's talk page, then please make that clear. (There is no benefit to being cryptic here or elsewhere.) Please see WP:MERGETEXT and WP:Copying within Wikipedia. Now, Willbb234, can we close this as merge and redirect and move on? Thanks. Drmies ( talk) 16:13, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
The result was keep. Vanamonde ( Talk) 15:19, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
Low-citation record and article sourced by lots of web stuff. Notability not obvious, so thought community should take a look. Agricola44 ( talk) 14:02, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions. Authoring textbooks is the example for how to pass C4, but of course it isn't the only way. I'm not sure we have quite enough documentation to make that case in this specific instance, but it's superfluous either way. And she did write a textbook that turns up in a number of syllabuses (after [10] [11] [12] [13], I stopped looking), which doesn't hurt. XOR'easter ( talk) 15:50, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Girl next door. Clear consensus not to keep, with redirect being a reasonable WP:ATD. Content remains in the history if there's anything sourced to reliable sources to merge. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 04:57, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
This article faces some edit warring and recreation after my attempt to make it a redirect, so I would like to put it to rest. The topic of a "boy next door" is not independently notable except as a rarer derivative of "girl next door" and fails WP:GNG. ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 13:52, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 18:41, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
The article originally created for an Islamic organisation based United Kingdom. Kutyava ( talk) 13:48, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Vanamonde ( Talk) 15:26, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
This has been CSDd three times over the years, once for copyvio and twice for A7. I think a case could be made again for A7, but I'm going to bring it to AFD for a decision with the suggestion that if this is deleted, it is also now salted.
Bottom line, the article fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. When I came to the article, it was packed with citations, but all except one of them were articles about other topics (deodorant, pharmaceuticals, etc.) where FMI had contributed research that prompted the article. That in no way establishes the notability of the company itself. What remains is one solitary source that is actually about FMI, and I am extremely dubious about the reliability of it. My own WP:BEFORE finds no articles covering the company in depth - just a load of press releases either about the company or about their research. Hug syrup 12:13, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 14:33, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
No significant coverage per WP:ORG. SL93 ( talk) 02:06, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
The result was keep. Haukur ( talk) 10:20, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
Procedural nomination pursuant to Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 August 12, as while the review concluded that this article is not necessarily covered by the BLPDELETE and discussion that got its previous version deleted, some people wanted a full discussion or had concerns about the quality of the sourcing. Personally I have no opinion. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 09:54, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Fenix down ( talk) 06:16, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
Footballer who fails GNG and NFOOTY. Article claims he played in USL Pro, although it's clearly wrong as Ottawa didn't play in USL Pro in 2013. They played in non-fully-pro PDL [19] BlameRuiner ( talk) 09:16, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Tone 10:54, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
Creator is a name match for the company's marketing person. Sources fail WP:CORPDEPTH, being press releases / churnalism. This is a tiny private company, with 20 employees. Guy ( Help!) 08:58, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Tone 10:54, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
Flagged for notability for over 5 years and never fixed. Sources are press releases, and the first couple of pages of Google results show no substantive coverage in reliable independent sources. I don't think this passes WP:CORPDEPTH. Creator name is a match for a marketing person at the subject ocmpany. Guy ( Help!) 08:45, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Tone 08:38, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
Bio of an individual who has local notability as a political activist but lacks any reliable independent sources to demonstrate that they meet our notability threshold. Mccapra ( talk) 07:31, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 21:50, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
Apparently-promotional article for obscure cryptocurrency thing that's barely covered in crypto blogs, let alone mainstream sources. Zero evidence of notability. Refbombed - literally every single source is either a crypto blog (the NASDAQ is a crypto blog reprint), or irrelevant to the topic and doesn't even mention ERC-1155 - and this is after a source and OR cleanout. Declined PROD, which creator tried to fix by adding more bad and/or irrelevant sources. David Gerard ( talk) 07:23, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
I would however like to contend that sources added after the initial proposal for deletion were not irrelevant: they clearly involved a mainstream game publication (Polygon) speaking about a game that has adopted the standard, and made the integration of blockchain a focus of the game's notability. Other articles confirmed that it was the ERC1155 standard being adopted by said game. Just as most people not knowing how the complex machinations of an Internal Combustion Engine work does not mean that Internal Combustion Engines are irrelevant to account for when speaking about automobiles, so I believe that individual token standards are indeed relevant to speaking about how blockchain works (when people choose to delve into that level of detail).
It's just unfortunate that the relative technological complexity of blockchain and low levels of mainstream adoption mean that any coverage in acceptable mainstream sources have been primarily limited to very broad topline discussion of Bitcoin (which by virtue of being the first cryptocurrency also has less recent technological development than many). Perhaps in future as blockchain (and blockchain gaming in particular) gains more mainstream awareness, blockchain-centric sources will become more acceptable, or more of the currently-acceptable publications will have had time to cover them. For now though, the requirements make writing about any finer or emerging details quite troublesome. -- FrendlyBaratheon ( talk) 12:04, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
The result was merge to Indochinese Communist Party. If better sourcing emerges which meets WP:N, it can always be spun back out after gaining consensus on the talk page. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:58, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
Did my best to locate substantial sources about this group but there is literally nothing available beyond the two sentences already in this article. I tried every possible keyword variation, including snippets like "national salvation"+Kampuchea and similar, but got nothing beyond the source already in the article. We can't maintain an article on the basis of two sentences in a single book.
I'm not sure there's a suitable merge target, but I'd be happy to withdraw and merge somewhere as an alternative to deletion if someone can suggest something. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 02:55, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
we can deduce a greater body of coverage- no, we can't. Substantiating a claim of notability requires the existence of in-depth reliable sources, not the assumption of the existence of such sources. And in this case, all of the sources you have presented are reliable, but are not sufficiently in-depth to support notability. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 09:54, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. It is not clear from this discussion if there are enough sources that establish notability, as many but not all of them have been contested. COI issues or image issues should be discussed elsewhere; as for the advertising claims, I am pretty certain that on Wikipedia a claim of "advertising" requires more than just a page existing with poor sourcing. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 07:58, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Appears to be a WP:GNG fail that was sloppily accepted through AfC by a reviewer. Of the reviews that exists for the game, only one from IGN Spain appears to be from a reliable source, while the others are from obscure blogs. Just because it exists on Metacritic doesn't indicate notability. ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 15:31, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Definitely not advertising. I would say by video game standards only one of these reviews are positive, and by those same standards the score isn't anywhere close to a must play game. Marksethi ( talk) 10:57, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
I wrote it and it wasn't written with any intention of advertising. I tried to remain unbiased as possible when writing the article. Marksethi ( talk) 10:31, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
The result was merge to Carbon-filament bulb. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:58, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
Bio of a man whose only claim to notability is holding some patents. The Chicago Tribune ref provided is the single source I can find to support the article (I can’t read it from the UK). There’s a Youtube video, a blog and a family-authored obituary, and nothing else I can find. Mccapra ( talk) 04:16, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Hyperspace#Popular depictions in science fiction. Tone 08:38, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
Improper split from the parent article that is entirely fancruft and original research, goes against WP:IPC suggested guidelines. ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 15:34, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Fenix down ( talk) 06:14, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
Article fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL Simione001 ( talk) 04:04, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. "the very obscurity of these two figures" is not an argument which leads to keeping. We write about notable topics, not obscure ones. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:00, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
Neither entry on this disambiguation page is mentioned in the target article, and therefore both entries fail MOS:DABMENTION. The page therefore fails to provide verified information to the reader and is redundant. Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 15:52, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Hello
I'm not sure how to respond to this correctly. I can see how this page doesn't fit neatly into the rules of a Disambiguation page, but the very obscurity of these two figures meant that when researching them for an article I very nearly made the mistake of confusing the two and thought it would be very useful for others who might be liable to make the same mistake to have it clarified that they are not one and the same.
The ideal approach would to be a full entry for either or both figues, but until someone has the time and energy to do that, I feel it would be an un-necessary loss to remove this even if it does contravene the letter of the wiki law - at least until the subjects have been fleshed out.
Best wishes
Malikbek — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malikbek ( talk • contribs) 2019-08-22 18:09:50 (UTC)
The result was delete. Tone 08:39, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
Futurology from 2006. Very unclear what the significance of this list of companies is, or was. Rathfelder ( talk) 16:16, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. There's a lot of non-sequitur here that I had to sift through. Much of this is essentially arguing WP:INHERITED, which doesn't fly.
The strongest argument to keep is the list of sources presented, some of which are in reputable, mainstream, publications. However, some of these have been shown to be either passing mentions or obligatory local coverage, and thus don't bring much weight to a WP:N discussion. The one source that everybody agrees is totally solid is The Politico, but that's just one source, and one is not enough. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:40, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
I don't think this meets notability criteria. There are a couple of articles about the duo in a reliable source (one is a local writeup which I can't read due to a paywall) and the other is a local article about a drugs charge. The performances noted have, again, been at local festivals. Google search comes up with fewer than 100 results. Proposed deletion contested. ... discospinster talk 18:58, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
if a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. In my opinion, the Politico article by itself satisfies this requirement. All the other references in the article (except for the reference about their legal sentence) + the two mentions in WP:RS listed above should make this a no-brainer keep. Banana Republic ( talk) 22:41, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
I would also point out the worldwide trust in media is very low. [31] All of Wikipedia's "reliable sources" in the mainstream news media said Donald Trump was not going to be elected. Obviously, Trump was elected. And then Wikipedia's "reliable sources" in the mainstream media pushed the Trump-collusion conspiracy theory which Mueller's congressional appearance and report showed was a total joke. Trump is not going to be impeached in all likelihood. I realize it is hard to be a profitable paper or news organization in the age of the internet and political polarization, but Wikipedia's reliable sources list/rule needs a major revamping. Accordingly, Wikipedia:Ignore all rules makes perfect sense in the meantime. Knox490 ( talk) 22:03, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
You asked for reliable sources. Pointing out the mainstream news sources that Wikipedia considers reliable are no longer reliable is spot on and very relevant. Just yesterday, MSNBC retracted a story due to poor/sloppy journalism. [32]
The mainstream news pushing conspiracy theories, engaging in sloppy journalism and engaging in other egregious practices has caused their credibility to plunge in the minds of the public.
I am not happy about this state of affairs. Now I mainly follow important trends and largely ignore the media when possible because what they are often presenting is an alternative make believe universe. Knox490 ( talk) 14:08, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Rollidan ( talk) 04:25, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
This seems like a collection of news articles, not sure it belongs here. BigDwiki ( talk) 19:56, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Fenix down ( talk) 06:15, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
Artcle fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Simione001 ( talk) 04:01, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 07:14, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
Contested WP:PROD by an IP. Notability concerns; the subject of the article doesn't seem to have done anything notable, per WP's definition. There are a bunch of sources in the article, but the only ones that discuss the subject of the article in any remotely significant way are self-published, and therefore cannot be used to establish notability. WP:NAUTHOR doesn't apply, because this individual is not the author of a book, he is an editor of a book. ‑Scottywong | converse || 03:15, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Fenix down ( talk) 06:18, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
Non notable sportsperson. Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG nothing found in a berfore search. Dom from Paris ( talk) 16:13, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
entre os jogadores mais vitoriosos do futsal brasileiro/ "among the most successful players in Brazilian futsal"), [39] (
Um dos jogadores mais vitoriosos do futsal mundial("One of the most successful players in world futsal"), and [40]. Prior to playing in Brazil, he played in Iran. "There must be more sources." :-) – Leviv ich 17:51, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 07:14, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
Fails WP: BIO and WP:GNG, non-notable businessman with almost no coverage in WP:RS online. Article is sourced only by press releases, two of which don't mention him, along with a short, unremarkable piece he wrote for Campaign (magazine). Tracy Von Doom ( talk) 02:44, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. "on a TV show for 7 years, also was a drill sargeant in the US Marines and was involved with steroid use" is not really a keep argument; we need WP:SIGCOV for that. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 07:13, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
WP:BLP1E Meatsgains( talk) 01:29, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Tone 08:39, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
Non-notable relatively new musical artist. Does not meet WP:MUSICBIO. --- Coffeeand crumbs 00:41, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 07:13, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
Suspected hoax as the chart performance does not match for Simple Plan, Also the infoboxes don't match up as Ayo & Teo, "Break My Heart" and Hoodie suggest to be a song by
Hey Violet. However, I also checked the supposed chart performances and they don't match up either for that band. No music video under this name shows up for Simple Plan nor Hey Violet but one comes up for
Hey Violet. Reasons why I didn't speedy this is 1) a supposed source for the album name is
https://forums.lpunderground.com/t/simple-plan-taking-one-for-the-team-the-forerunners-edition/33754 but iTunes doesn't have it and 2) if this is indeed a hoax, it's a 2 year hoax.
MrLinkinPark333 (
talk)
00:39, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 07:12, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
Non-notable American diplomat. Was not able to find any RS about him. Per WP:POLOUTCOMES, ambassadors are not inherently notable. Natg 19 ( talk) 00:17, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Fenix down ( talk) 06:08, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
Does not meet WP:GNG. KKKNL1488 (talk) 01:57, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. There's clearly no consensus to delete. I've gone back and forth on whether the keep arguments are really solid enough to call a consensus. I've written this closing statement several times already, each time as I went back to double-check what I'd written against the arguments, I changed my mind. So, I guess that really means NC is the right call. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:11, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
Glauben können wie du is one of approximately 700 hymns [a] published in the widely used Catholic hymnal the Gotteslob, used in the Catholic Church in German-speaking countries. It can be seen in this List of German hymns on de-wiki under 'G'. (For some reason, I don't see it listed here, but it is perhaps not the right regional version.) As previously noted on the article Talk page in this Notability discussion, this article fails WP:GNG. The article creator has done a good job of finding pretty much every scrap of information available about this hymn, but it still doesn't satisfy the Notability criteria. As mentioned at that discussion, some of the content may be usable at List of hymns in the German Catholic common hymnal, or at the composer's article; although as Gerda points out, there may be an WP:UNDUE issue in including too much information there. But that is a question for those articles, and needn't be taken up here. I sympathize with Gerda's interest, knowledge, and passion for the topic, but that's simply not how we base decisions on what topics are notable enough for the encyclopedia. An English equivalent of de:Liste von Kirchenliedern, de:Liste der Kirchenlieder im Evangelischen Gesangbuch, or de:Liste der Gesänge im Stammteil des Gotteslobs would be a great use of Gerda's talents, but this article should be deleted as not notable. Mathglot ( talk) 21:44, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Notes
Above, Mendaliv asked about the quality of the sources. So, I thought I would go over them (the numbers are wikilinks):
full text of Pastor's summary for October 2018 (
link)
|
---|
October is the second, major, month of Mary of the year. In it, the Blessed Mother is especially honored by the rosary prayer, in which we look at the stages of life that connect her most with her Son – from proclamation about the Cross and Resurrection, to her acceptance and coronation in Heaven. But before meditating on these stages of life, the Rosary Prayer asks for faith, hope, and love so that we can properly accept these thoughts and carry them into our own lives. This fits the song "Glauben können wie du" (Believing like you do), which I would like to introduce you to today. It can be found under number 885. Just under ten years ago, Franciscan priest Helmut Schlegel wrote this modern Marian song, the content of which goes back to the Bible. It was then set to music by Church musician Joachim Raabe. Faith, Hope and Love – the three great words are filled with life herein. Each stanza brings to mind a quote from Mary, "announced" by a radiant A major chord immediately before it. Faith has its origin in listening to the Word of God. From this we have the power to affirm life with all its ups and downs, "as God gave me" and thus – even in the dark hours of life – to recognize and confess with Mary: "The Great things He (God) has done." Hope is not some fantasy vision of a better world, but rather, it begins out of Faith by doing what is humanly possible today. That may always seem to be too little, to us. But then the Blessed Mother reminds us through her words of the miracle at the wedding at Cana, encourages us to trust her Son, "What He says to you, do that!" Finally, love opens a view of the world, makes us recognize the Creator in every creature. So we cannot remain indifferent to what is happening around us. But that means more than just compassion. Real love brings one to be of service to others; "May it be done for me according to your Word." That's what Mary spelled out with her life. Her example teaches us to pray: "That is how I want to believe, hope and love; Mary." Konrad Perabo, Pastor |
The most substantial of these sources are #1, and #6. Note that Google translate does a pretty decent job of translating running text in these sources, sufficient to give the gist of the content. If there are any particular passages of interest needed, I'll be happy to translate them. Mathglot ( talk) 00:34, 24 August 2019 (UTC) updated to add material to #6; by Mathglot ( talk) 17:15, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
An issue possibly affecting evaluation of this Afd has been raised here. Mathglot ( talk) 21:37, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Normally, I would have closed this as Redirect, but Epinoia's arguments convinced me that delete makes more sense. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:28, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
I found no significant coverage, mostly routine run of the mill coverage. Fails WP:CORP. SL93 ( talk) 18:44, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
The result was Delete. I would wonder if List of Pennsylvania fire departments should exist, given that almost none(if not none) of the list members have standalone articles, which I why I did not redirect. 331dot ( talk) 19:28, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
With all due respect, I do not see how this is notable. Ymblanter ( talk) 18:36, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
The result was keep. Fenix down ( talk) 06:16, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
Subject fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY, never played in a WP:FPL. MYS 77 ✉ 18:15, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 18:47, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
Only references are to its own websites. Fundamentally a BLP. Rathfelder ( talk) 18:07, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 20:15, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
School only went through eighth grade, so it was not a high school. The only independent coverage we have of this school was the article about it shutting down. This seems to fail either the general or school-specific measures of notability. — C.Fred ( talk) 17:57, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
The result was keep Nominator has withdrawn on the basis of finding adequate sourcing. (non-admin closure) AmericanAir88( talk) 18:30, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
At least one of the sources says nothing a about this conflict as far as I can tell. Slatersteven ( talk) 17:13, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. It seems like the sole keep argument does not actually establish notability nor does it indicate that the content is needed anywhere. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 20:16, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
Small political party with no elected officers or noteworthy performances. Tags have existed on this article for years Article is sourced almost exclusively to the party itself; per WP:ORGCRIT, political parties must have received significant, non-trivial coverage in multiple independent reliable secondary sources - this article fails this. The only two citations to non-IAP sources are ballotaccessnews.com (a WordPress blog) and St. George’s News, an online free website that is not a newspaper and more or less seems to be an ad for the IAP. There is a link to an article from the Salt Lake Tribune, but this is not significant coverage: it merely documents that the party exists and that it wanted to be on the ballot. Per wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources, ThoughtCo is a self-published source, again failing our standards for citations. This party simply doesn’t seem to be notable and should be deleted. Toa Nidhiki05 12:30, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
I doubt anyone would be confusedAt least, if this article did not spend significant space on the unrelated NV party, confusion would be much less likely. -- JBL ( talk) 13:15, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 20:17, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
These sublists of National Film Registry are pretty useless content forks. The whole point of having sortable lists is that you can sort the whole list, not just a sublist. People will typically be interested in the list of, say, films on the National Film Registry that were released in the 1960s. Nobody is interested in knowing the films on the National Film Registry that were released in the 1960s and whose title begins with a B. Spinning off these sublists (of a featured list no less!) accomplishes nothing. We want to direct our readers to the most likely to be useful article and that is clearly National Film Registry. Furthermore, keeping these lists doubles the work necessary to keep the info up to date. Pichpich ( talk) 16:51, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
The result was draftified. Procedural close, the article has been moved to the draft-space, again. Given the comments in this, and previous AfD, next time the article should go through "articles for creation process"; rather than being published directly. Regards, —usernamekiran (talk) 20:24, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
Per previous AFD (closed procedurally): "Articles looks like promo for the subject and his company. Current sourcing is a couple of entries in directories, a passing mention, and his company's website - can't find any better sourcing - fails WP:BASIC." Previous close was making the article a draft - but it hasn't improved at all. WP:BEFORE shows nearly no mainstream coverage. Current coverage is largely blockchain sites and other non-RSes. David Gerard ( talk) 16:32, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Vanamonde ( Talk) 03:36, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
This article is (and I believe always will be) an incomplete list. A major issue is already going to be presented in defining what a "rally" is. Many events that might be called rallies are not advertised as such. Warren, for instance, hosts many gatherings called "organizing events" and "town halls", but these appear to be rallies. SecretName101 ( talk) 16:21, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
The result was keep. Procedural keep. Apart from most people expressing some form of "keep" opinion, this is a topic that is better discussed on the talkpage, not at AfD. Renaming, restructuring, things like that. Tone 08:37, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
This AfD might strike people as odd. At first blush, the page seems like an anodyne piece of demographic interest, no different to "list of Native American members of Congress." So why the AfD? I ask you to bear with me because it will take some time to explain my rationales, although they are rock-solid.
In sum: the page must be deleted because it fails (and will inevitably fail, as I argue below) the standards of the encyclopedia in terms of WP:V and WP:RS.
There are two key ways in which the page fails (and will inevitably fail) WP:V and WP:RS. First, the page relies on WP:OR, rather than reliable sources, to determine who is Middle Eastern. Second, the page relies on WP:OR, rather than reliable sources, to determine who is Arab. As I will show, the problem of OR is unfixable because (due to the nature of the definition of “Middle Eastern," which unlike, e.g., "sub-Saharan African" is extremely fuzzy and controversial) it is impossible to verify the claims as to who is Middle Eastern. I propose the deletion of the page and the creation of new pages with the same information that do not violate WP:V and WP:RS.
Unverified/OR claims to as who is Middle Eastern
The page relies on WP:OR to determine who is Middle Eastern. People of Iranian, Armenian, and Georgian descent (countries often included in the Middle East) and Ashkenazi Jews (who are partially descended from the Levant, and often identify with their ancestral roots), are excluded for no reason but OR, despite being considered "Middle Eastern Americans" on the wikipedia page on that subject, as well as being considered as such by the US Census Bureau.
There are no sources cited in the page as to which of the Congresspersons are Middle Eastern, and since the definition of the Middle East itself is fuzzy and controversial, there will never be such sources. (To illustrate how fuzzy the region is: many commentators would consider Turkey Middle Eastern, others would say it’s part of Europe; many would include Armenia and Georgia while others would not; many would include Sudan, and others would not. Others still would exclude the Levant and all countries West of the Gulf.) Following the census definition would not add any additional clarity; this too is controversial and was on the verge of being changed in 2016, to exclude Armenians and Georgians.
The subjectivity of the definition of Middle Eastern leads to an inevitable problem of lack of verifiability. This problem is showcased by the completely OR talk page debates about who does or does not “count” as Middle Eastern, as well as the absence of reliable sources in the article. In particular, the editor User:AuH2ORepublican has been active in removing former members of Congress of Armenian and Jewish descent from the page, based on nothing but OR. As silly and vulgar as this kind of amateur ethnic line-drawing is, no one can say AuH20 is "wrong" in his definition of Middle Eastern, and his exclusion of Armenians and Jews therefrom. And this is exactly my point: There is no way to present a verifiable, RS-supported list of "Middle Eastern Congresspeople," so it must be deleted.
Unverified/OR Claims to as who is Arab, which contradict the non-Arab identity of those cited as Arabs
There is an even more glaring and embarrassing OR/WP:V problem: the overwhelming majority of the people on this page didn’t/don’t identify as Arab, yet we are labeling them as such based on our own opinions about who should be considered Arabs. Specifically, the vast majority of the people on the page are Lebanese Christians. This ethnic group tends not to identify as Arab (see: /info/en/?search=Lebanese_people#Identity). It is extremely disrespectful to label them as “Arabs”, not to mention an expression of OR and inaccurate on the merits in most if not all of these cases.
So the page, in implicitly rejecting the ethnic identities of the Lebanese Christians (and instead insisting that we are Arabs, contrary to our identity and also contrary to genetic testing showing we are more closely related to Mediterranean Europeans than Gulf Arabs or North Africans) is not only a failure in terms of WP:RS and WP:V, but offensive, insofar as it imposes an ethnic identity on people which they do not or didn’t accept.
Again, the editor User:AuH2ORepublican has been active in insisting that Congresspersons of partial or full Lebanese descent be labeled "Arabs" and included on this page, stating that it is irrelevant whether these people identify as Arab, and they must be included on the page of Arabs elected to the Congress. He cites no sources for his OR view that we (Lebanese Christians) are Arabs regardless of how we identify. I don't accuse him of bad faith, but I instead cite him as an expression of how unverifiable and OR-based the assertions on the page are.
Proposal
So, my proposal? Delete this page (on grounds of WP:V and WP:RS, as described above) and create a new page for "Arab American Congress members," that is not combined with the vast and nebulous category “Middle Eastern congresspersons.” There we should list anyone who 1) identifies as Arab and 2) is fully or partially descended from an Arabic speaking country. (For example, Ilhan Omar is from Somalia where Arabic is one of the official languages; since she identifies as Arab we should include her, but we shouldn’t automatically include all future Somali-American Congresspersons in this category, unless they identify as such, since many Somali people reject an Arab identity.) That will solve the problems of OR, V, and offensiveness.
I don’t think we should re-create a “Middle Eastern Congressmembers” page because the category is too broad and fuzzy and diverse to be descriptively useful, and will inevitably lead to problems of verifiability. People who are interested in the subject of American representatives from the region should instead create pages like “List of Armenian-American congressmembers” or “List of Lebanese-American Congressmembers” or “list of Egyptian-American Congresspersons”, which can have all of this information and will not have to rely on OR. GergisBaki ( talk) 17:56, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
This article was created after a British editor, based on how the term "Asian" is used in the UK (but unfamiliar with how the term is used in the U.S.), wanted to add Arab-American members of Congress to the article on Asian-American (and Pacific-Islander) members of Congress. I recommended to him, and he accepted, adding "and Middle-Eastern Americans" to the title because otherwise it would exclude persons from Arab countries who are not Arab speakers, such as persons of Assyrian (aka Chaldean), Turkish, Persian, Kurdish, etc. descent.
While Arab Americans are not considered ethnic minorities under U.S. federal law and do not comprise an individual category under the U.S. Census, they nevertheless are deemed--by themselves and by society writ large--as an ethnicity within the Caucasian race, with use of the Arabic language by their forebears and certain traditions and cultural norms being the main points of commonality. While sub-groups within the Arab diaspora sometimes prefer to focus on differences between the groups--no one claims that there are no differences between Lebanese Christians and Saudi Arabian Muslims--the term "Arab American" is one that generally is used to describe the descendants of all such peoples.
I do not claim to be an expert on sociological characteristics of descendants of Lebanese Christians, but, anecdotally, I can tell you that my grandfather, who was the child of Lebanese Christians from the Zgartha/Eden region of North Lebanon, considered himself an Arab American. So does my father-in-law, also the child of Lebanese Christians from (a different part of) North Lebanon. It isn't that they didn't or don't acknowledge the differences among Arab sub-groups, or that they ignore that they descended from Phoenicians while people from, say, Yemen likely didn't, but they still considered all Arabic-speaking peoples to be fellow Arabs. This dichotomy is no different from that of Cuban-Americans who consider people from other parts of Latin-Americans to be fellow Latinos despite recognizing that Argentines and Hondurans and Cubans do not have identical cultures.
As for GergisBaki's characterization of the removal by myself and other editors of edits in which persons with non-Arab and non-Middle Eastern ancestry (such as Armenians from the Caucasus, and European Jews who immigrated in the 1930s to what later became the State of Israel) had been included in the article, such decisions were taken by consensus, with discussion in the Talk page. If the issue of including "Middle Eastern" in the title (so as not to exclude Assyrians and such) is creating more controversy than such article can withstand, then I guess that "Middle Eastern" can be excised from the title and only persons of Arab ancestry would be included (which would exclude Congressman Benjamin and Congresswoman Eshoo, as well as future non-Arab Middle Easterners in Congress), but certainly it wouldn't be grounds to delete the entire article.
In addition, it would be futile (and a violation of NPOV) to try to establish whether an American of Lebanese descent "identifies as Arab American" (particularly when we're talking about people long dead), as GergisBaki proposes, just as it would be inappropriate to second-guess the Latino bona fides of a Mexican-American who is proud of his Mexican heritage but is not into Pan-Hispanicism. There shouldn't be a test prepared by an editor with a particular POV to determine whether a descendant of an Arab-speaking people "truly is" an Arab.
So that's my two-cents' worth on this issue. As always, I welcome the opinion of other editors interested in this article. AuH2ORepublican ( talk) 19:49, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
So, @ Steeletrap, your problem is with the word "Arab" (and "Middle Eastern," of course). In that case, let's just call the article "List of Arab-American, Lebanese-American and Assyrian-American Members of Congress" and avoid the whole imbroglio.
Your proposal to obtain a statement from members of Congress as to whether they identify with the word "Arab" seems rather silly, particularly when it comes to the dead ones. And why do you assume that Lebanese-Americans don't want to be listed in an article about Arab-Americans? Why not include them but let those who wish to opt out to say that they should be removed? It is biased to assume, with no evidence whatsoever, that a particular Lebanese American rejects the label "Arab American" just because many Lebanese Christians wish to differentiate themselves from Arab Muslims. @ GergisBaki twice removed from the article's introduction a factual statement about Senator James Abourezk, a child of Lebanese Christians, being the first Arab American to serve in the U.S. Senate, because "Lebanese don't consider themselves Arabs." Now, Senator Abourezk was one of two co-founders (among with James Zogby) of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (see https://www.huffpost.com/entry/what-american-hustle-does_b_4541307?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly9lbi53aWtpcGVkaWEub3JnLw&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAIJWRuk7hGpIa09XQWkU0JS3x5bf7urSF0BC-dWuJloLj1RIvo_VRsjVNUwcsfvY2iFcGK8jDwdDIbf_t2nsOKNjbFa4m8UKfnXFza7lGyPUovnu3uyzI022X3_FAx-dW6FnT4zkWMj2eHujvw639zyXUsgxcVFEOGhRzQMuixaV), but I guess that he's a Lebanese Christian and thus not a real Arab. (Do you know how I learned that about Abourezk? I went to his Wikipedia article and clicked on one of the sources cited therein.)
Call me a "PoV pusher" if you wish, but I'm not the one trying to exclude Lebanese Americans from an article based on some subjective standard. If you don't like the term "Arab-American" as applied to Lebanese Americans, then let's add "Lebanese-Americans" to the title and settle this once and for all. And if we add "Assyrian-American" as well, and, when a Kurdish American, etc., is elected to Congress, add such other Middle-Eastern ethnicities to the title as are agreed by consensus, then we can get to the same place without inviting controversy. A rose by any other name still smells as sweet. AuH2ORepublican ( talk) 22:38, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
The threshold issue is whether descendants from native inhabitants of Arab countries are a distinct enough group that a list of those of them who have served in Congress is a matter worthy of an encyclopedia article. If the consensus is that such an article should exist, the issues remaining are (i) which descendants of such native inhabitants of Arab countries should be so listed and (ii) what do we call the article?
Regarding the first question, it seems wrong to me to say that an Arabic-speaker from Syria or Iraq should be included but a Neo-Aramaic speaker from Syria or Iraq shouldn't. Assyrians/Chaldeans have lived in those countries for millennia and, when they emigrate to the United States, they face many of the same issues as do Arabic-speakers from such countries. Assyrians/Chaldeans are native inhabitants of Arab countries, and I don't think that they should be excluded from the article.
I also wholly oppose the notion that only such Lebanese as taken an affirmative act to "identify as Arab" (whatever that means) should be included in the article. The vibrant Arab community in Dearborn, MI was built by Lebanese and Syrians who thought of themselves as Lebanese or Syrian first and Arab as an afterthought, but without them the more recent pan-Arab immigrants would have been starting out from scratch. If a Sunni thinks of himself as a Sunni first and as a Muslin second, that does not make him any less Muslim; the same holds for persons from Arab countries whose main loyalty is to their particular country or tribe. (This reminds me of Lawrence of Arabia, when Anthony Quinn's character tells Lawrence that he doesn't know what an Arab is, but rattles off the names of a half-dozen tribes within Saudi Arabia, implying that their loyalty was only to the tribe.) In any event, it is easy to confirm that a person's ancestors emigrated from an Arab country, and much harder to tell whether he or she "identifies as Arab" irrespective of the subjective standard that one imposed. I would stick to objective criteria.
As for the second question, to avoid the term "Middle Easterner" (which, unbeknownst to me, has fallen into disfavor, and which leads to controversy due to changing definitions of the term), and in order to make sure that all Lebanese-Americans and Syrian-Americans are included without the need for a subjective litmus test, perhaps we should retitle the article "List of Lebanese-Americans, Syrian-Americans, Palestinian-Americans and Assyrian-Americans in Congress" and add a new demonym to the title whenever someone from a different ethnicity from the Arab World is added. (Somalia is not an Arab country, and IMHO Congresswoman Omar shouldn't be in the article, but there was consensus that she should be included and thus she was; by changing the name there would be no doubt that she should be excluded.)
What do other editors think? AuH2ORepublican ( talk) 17:50, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
@ George Al-Shami, you wrote "[t]he problem with that title is that it would have to be periodically updated if a Jordanian or Egyptian American gets elected to the Congress." You are absolutely correct, but if that's what it takes to make everyone happy, I think that it's worth going through that extra trouble when someone whose ancestors came from another Arab country is elected to Congress. I would not recommend calling the article "List of descendants from Arabic-speaking Americans in the United States Congress" because not only would it exclude Assyrians/Chaldeans, but it also could be deemed to include someone with a British father who had learned Arabic while in foreign service or something. Moreover, you'd always have some wise-ass say "Congressman X was born in Michigan to Arabic-speaking parents from Syria, but his parents never became U.S. citizens, so the Congressman isn't a descendant of an Arabic-speaking *American*. More seriously, it could be used to exclude someone whose Lebanese or Palestinian parents emigrated to South America or Central America but never to the U.S.--for example, had Rashida Tlaib been born in Nicaragua, where her Palestinian parents first emigrated, and moved to the U.S. on her own as a teenager, then she would not descend from Arabic-speaking Americans yet clearly would be a Palestinian-American once she was naturalized. AuH2ORepublican ( talk) 20:46, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Al Ameer, I have absolutely no problem using the term "Arab Americans" to refer to what the Census Bureau considers Arab Americans (which certainly includes Lebanese). The only reason that I suggested the more cumbersome route of listing each individual Arab sub-group in the title is because several editors are advocating for the deletion of the article if it refers to Lebanese Americans as "Arab Americans" absent their specific and public self-identification as "Arab Americans." So if we can reach a consensus that Lebanese-American congressmen would be included under the term "Arab-American congressmen," then separately listing "Lebanese-American," "Palestinian-American," etc. in the title would be unnecessary.
As for Assyrian Americans, I am well aware that they are not Arab Americans under any plausible definition of the term. That being said, their ancestors are native residents of Arab countries, and the immigrant experience of, say, a Syrian Christian is not markedly different if he's an Assyrian or if he's an Arab. For these reasons, I think that they should be included in the article. If the consensus is that they should be removed, then so be it, but if they are to be kept in the article then I propose that "Assyrian-American" be added to the title, given that the term "Arab American" does not encompass Assyrian Americans while "Middle Eastern American" is overbroad and problematic.
Somali Americans, on the other hand, are neither Arabs nor descendants of native peoples of Arab countries (most Somalis have some Arab admixture in their ancestry, but it's from a millennium ago), have a very different immigrant experience from Arabs and Assyrians/Chaldeans, and should not be included in the article (although they are included in the articles on African-American members of Congress). One thing that is clear from this discussion is that there is a consensus that Congresswoman Omar should not be included in this article. AuH2ORepublican ( talk) 16:04, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
@ GergisBaki, with all due respect, if only such Lebanese as "self-identify as Arab" to your satisfaction are included in the article, the correct name for the article should be "List of Pan-Arabists in the U.S. Congress," and such article would not be appropriate for an encyclopedia. Lebanon is an Arab country and the U.S. Census Bureau classifies Lebanese as an Arab ethnicity, so one would be deviating from NPOV, and manufacturing a controversy where none exists, were one to exclude Lebanese-Americans from the article based on their individual points of view regarding Arab identity. Your point regarding how many Lebanese Christians nowadays do not describe themselves as "Arabs" is well taken, but the way to deal with that reality is to add a sentence to the introductory paragraph explaining that those listed in the article are descendants from immigrants from Arab countries (or immigrants from such countries themselves) and that inclusion on the list should not be understood to constitute an assertion regarding such individuals' self-identification as Arabs. AuH2ORepublican ( talk) 15:41, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
I composed this response prior to seeing Al Ameer's comment, so my apologies if there's an overlap between what the two of us wrote:
GergisBaki, you are engaged in POV by trying to divide people as "real Arabs" and "non-Pan-Arab-identifying (according to your personal criteria)" instead of using the definition of "Arab American" generally used in the United States (the article, after all, is about U.S. congressmen) and officially promulgated by the U.S. Census Bureau. As Al Ameer wrote in this very page, "The U.S. Census groups Syrians, Lebanese and Palestinians as subcategories of "Arab" so it wouldn't be "original research" to say that Syrian, Lebanese and Palestinian Americans are Arab Americans." This is evident from the census forms themselves: The census invites people to report Arab ethnicity, and to sublist more specific Arab ethnicities, and includes "Lebanese" in the examples of more specific Arab ethnicities. Moreover, the Census Bureau has long classified persons who list "Lebanese" (or Syrian, Palestinian, etc.) as "Arab" in its population reports. See, e.g., https://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/censr-21.pdf. In other words, the U.S. Census Bureau classifies someone who identifies as Lebanese as an "Arab," without an additional litmus test or shibboleth. So by excluding those who claim Lebanese ancestry from the definition of "Arab" unless they jump through the hoops that you have concocted, it is you who is engaging in Original Research and/or Synthesis.
Besides, even if you got a consensus and managed to turn the article into a list of U.S. congressmen who publicly have identified as Pan-Arab (which I insist would not be an appropriate article due to its insurmountable POV components, not to mention that if would fail notability), it will be exceedingly difficult for you to determine whether the Arab-American congressmen in the list "self-identify as Arab" even if you came up with an objective definition of what "self-identifying as an Arab" means (although from the sound of it you mean @identifying as a Pan-Arabist"). People don't necessarily sign up with Arab-American groups, particularly those with a political agenda; heck, you mentioned the "AAS" as if it were some sort of invaluable resource, and I've never even heard of it. And how would you deal with Lebanese-American congressmen who died 20-30 years ago? You already stuck your foot in your mouth when you edited the main article to remove a reference to James Abourezk as the first Arab-American U.S. Senator because he's Lebanese and there was no evidence that he "self-identified" as Arab American, yet Abourezk founded the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee in 1980. If you couldn't bother to take a minute to read Abourezk's Wikipedia article, how are you going to determine that all of those other congressmen truly "self-identify as Arab"? And if you do spend hours poring through public statements and private correspondence of every Lebanese-American (and Syrian-American and Palestinian-American, I assume, or are they exempt from your suspicions?) ever to have served in Congress, how in the world would that not constitute Original Research?
Finally, you appear to be obsessed with the question of race, which is wholly irrelevant to this discussion. Arabs, as a group, are classified as white by the U.S. Census Bureau, but if the Census Bureau turned around and classified Arabs as "Asian or Pacific Islander" it would not make any difference in who is an Arab. (BTW, U.S. immigration laws originally classified Arabs as Asians, and thus subject to immigration restrictions, until Lebanese and Syrians--the founders of the Arab-American community--convinced the government to classify Arabs as white.) If you wish to argue that not every Arab is white, I'm not going to disagree with you, particularly given that Southern Egyptians speak Arabic and consider the selves (and are considered by others to be) Arabs while having substantial sub-Saharan African admixture for historical reasons. But, again, that is neither here nor there. What is ridiculous for you to claim is that my blue-eyed, white-skinned Palestinian Muslim friend is not white because he's undisputedly an Arab and thus can't be white, and then to apply that same faulty logic to coaim that indisputedly white Lebanese cannot be Arabs because Arabs are not white. You can't redefine the word "Arab" to mean "dark-skinned Arab" and then assert that Lebanese who (for obvious reasons) don't classify themselves as "dark-skinned Arabs" thus are not "Arabs." AuH2ORepublican ( talk) 14:04, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
I don't really edit on Wikipedia im just a regular guy but this shouldn't be an Arab purity text, this is about people with links to the Arabworld, that includes Lebs, Somalis, and any other Arab League member state, there is also another label you can go by Semitic/Hamitic or Afro-Asiatic like the language family which again includes all the people discussed here plus Jews. 2600:1700:4460:41A0:FF:5866:3DCA:7657 ( talk) 23:32, 2 August 2019 (UTC)randomguy
The result was keep. Total keep consensus based on sourcing. (non-admin closure) AmericanAir88( talk) 19:56, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
Fails WP:NORG. No reliable secondary sources completely independent of the subject that discuss it in detail John from Idegon ( talk) 15:53, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
The result was merge to WAY 79. Drmies ( talk) 17:12, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
Fails WP:BK. The only sources for which the book series is the subject are all sale sites. Willbb234 Talk (please {{ ping}} me in replies) 15:36, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Comment page deleted by creator, and made redirect page. Fairly pointless afd, it could have been much easier by discussion first. Afd first is never a very good idea. Other editors might have other solutions. JarrahTree 23:55, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Comment - please read this! Page content has in effect been merged into parent article - the nominator has made a valid point about this item, however, to keep this afd open, when the creator of the article agrees with its removal, an WP:AGF removal of the Afd, and a blank and Prod is within process, to do so. JarrahTree 07:56, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
JarrahTree, if "hohum" means "this content merged from Sesquicentenary Celebrations Series, which is what you say here and what I think you are saying on the nominator's talk page, then please make that clear. (There is no benefit to being cryptic here or elsewhere.) Please see WP:MERGETEXT and WP:Copying within Wikipedia. Now, Willbb234, can we close this as merge and redirect and move on? Thanks. Drmies ( talk) 16:13, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
The result was keep. Vanamonde ( Talk) 15:19, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
Low-citation record and article sourced by lots of web stuff. Notability not obvious, so thought community should take a look. Agricola44 ( talk) 14:02, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions. Authoring textbooks is the example for how to pass C4, but of course it isn't the only way. I'm not sure we have quite enough documentation to make that case in this specific instance, but it's superfluous either way. And she did write a textbook that turns up in a number of syllabuses (after [10] [11] [12] [13], I stopped looking), which doesn't hurt. XOR'easter ( talk) 15:50, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Girl next door. Clear consensus not to keep, with redirect being a reasonable WP:ATD. Content remains in the history if there's anything sourced to reliable sources to merge. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 04:57, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
This article faces some edit warring and recreation after my attempt to make it a redirect, so I would like to put it to rest. The topic of a "boy next door" is not independently notable except as a rarer derivative of "girl next door" and fails WP:GNG. ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 13:52, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 18:41, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
The article originally created for an Islamic organisation based United Kingdom. Kutyava ( talk) 13:48, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Vanamonde ( Talk) 15:26, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
This has been CSDd three times over the years, once for copyvio and twice for A7. I think a case could be made again for A7, but I'm going to bring it to AFD for a decision with the suggestion that if this is deleted, it is also now salted.
Bottom line, the article fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. When I came to the article, it was packed with citations, but all except one of them were articles about other topics (deodorant, pharmaceuticals, etc.) where FMI had contributed research that prompted the article. That in no way establishes the notability of the company itself. What remains is one solitary source that is actually about FMI, and I am extremely dubious about the reliability of it. My own WP:BEFORE finds no articles covering the company in depth - just a load of press releases either about the company or about their research. Hug syrup 12:13, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 14:33, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
No significant coverage per WP:ORG. SL93 ( talk) 02:06, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
The result was keep. Haukur ( talk) 10:20, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
Procedural nomination pursuant to Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 August 12, as while the review concluded that this article is not necessarily covered by the BLPDELETE and discussion that got its previous version deleted, some people wanted a full discussion or had concerns about the quality of the sourcing. Personally I have no opinion. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 09:54, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Fenix down ( talk) 06:16, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
Footballer who fails GNG and NFOOTY. Article claims he played in USL Pro, although it's clearly wrong as Ottawa didn't play in USL Pro in 2013. They played in non-fully-pro PDL [19] BlameRuiner ( talk) 09:16, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Tone 10:54, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
Creator is a name match for the company's marketing person. Sources fail WP:CORPDEPTH, being press releases / churnalism. This is a tiny private company, with 20 employees. Guy ( Help!) 08:58, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Tone 10:54, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
Flagged for notability for over 5 years and never fixed. Sources are press releases, and the first couple of pages of Google results show no substantive coverage in reliable independent sources. I don't think this passes WP:CORPDEPTH. Creator name is a match for a marketing person at the subject ocmpany. Guy ( Help!) 08:45, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Tone 08:38, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
Bio of an individual who has local notability as a political activist but lacks any reliable independent sources to demonstrate that they meet our notability threshold. Mccapra ( talk) 07:31, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 21:50, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
Apparently-promotional article for obscure cryptocurrency thing that's barely covered in crypto blogs, let alone mainstream sources. Zero evidence of notability. Refbombed - literally every single source is either a crypto blog (the NASDAQ is a crypto blog reprint), or irrelevant to the topic and doesn't even mention ERC-1155 - and this is after a source and OR cleanout. Declined PROD, which creator tried to fix by adding more bad and/or irrelevant sources. David Gerard ( talk) 07:23, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
I would however like to contend that sources added after the initial proposal for deletion were not irrelevant: they clearly involved a mainstream game publication (Polygon) speaking about a game that has adopted the standard, and made the integration of blockchain a focus of the game's notability. Other articles confirmed that it was the ERC1155 standard being adopted by said game. Just as most people not knowing how the complex machinations of an Internal Combustion Engine work does not mean that Internal Combustion Engines are irrelevant to account for when speaking about automobiles, so I believe that individual token standards are indeed relevant to speaking about how blockchain works (when people choose to delve into that level of detail).
It's just unfortunate that the relative technological complexity of blockchain and low levels of mainstream adoption mean that any coverage in acceptable mainstream sources have been primarily limited to very broad topline discussion of Bitcoin (which by virtue of being the first cryptocurrency also has less recent technological development than many). Perhaps in future as blockchain (and blockchain gaming in particular) gains more mainstream awareness, blockchain-centric sources will become more acceptable, or more of the currently-acceptable publications will have had time to cover them. For now though, the requirements make writing about any finer or emerging details quite troublesome. -- FrendlyBaratheon ( talk) 12:04, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
The result was merge to Indochinese Communist Party. If better sourcing emerges which meets WP:N, it can always be spun back out after gaining consensus on the talk page. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:58, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
Did my best to locate substantial sources about this group but there is literally nothing available beyond the two sentences already in this article. I tried every possible keyword variation, including snippets like "national salvation"+Kampuchea and similar, but got nothing beyond the source already in the article. We can't maintain an article on the basis of two sentences in a single book.
I'm not sure there's a suitable merge target, but I'd be happy to withdraw and merge somewhere as an alternative to deletion if someone can suggest something. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 02:55, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
we can deduce a greater body of coverage- no, we can't. Substantiating a claim of notability requires the existence of in-depth reliable sources, not the assumption of the existence of such sources. And in this case, all of the sources you have presented are reliable, but are not sufficiently in-depth to support notability. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 09:54, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. It is not clear from this discussion if there are enough sources that establish notability, as many but not all of them have been contested. COI issues or image issues should be discussed elsewhere; as for the advertising claims, I am pretty certain that on Wikipedia a claim of "advertising" requires more than just a page existing with poor sourcing. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 07:58, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Appears to be a WP:GNG fail that was sloppily accepted through AfC by a reviewer. Of the reviews that exists for the game, only one from IGN Spain appears to be from a reliable source, while the others are from obscure blogs. Just because it exists on Metacritic doesn't indicate notability. ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 15:31, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Definitely not advertising. I would say by video game standards only one of these reviews are positive, and by those same standards the score isn't anywhere close to a must play game. Marksethi ( talk) 10:57, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
I wrote it and it wasn't written with any intention of advertising. I tried to remain unbiased as possible when writing the article. Marksethi ( talk) 10:31, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
The result was merge to Carbon-filament bulb. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:58, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
Bio of a man whose only claim to notability is holding some patents. The Chicago Tribune ref provided is the single source I can find to support the article (I can’t read it from the UK). There’s a Youtube video, a blog and a family-authored obituary, and nothing else I can find. Mccapra ( talk) 04:16, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Hyperspace#Popular depictions in science fiction. Tone 08:38, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
Improper split from the parent article that is entirely fancruft and original research, goes against WP:IPC suggested guidelines. ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 15:34, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Fenix down ( talk) 06:14, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
Article fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL Simione001 ( talk) 04:04, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. "the very obscurity of these two figures" is not an argument which leads to keeping. We write about notable topics, not obscure ones. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:00, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
Neither entry on this disambiguation page is mentioned in the target article, and therefore both entries fail MOS:DABMENTION. The page therefore fails to provide verified information to the reader and is redundant. Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 15:52, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Hello
I'm not sure how to respond to this correctly. I can see how this page doesn't fit neatly into the rules of a Disambiguation page, but the very obscurity of these two figures meant that when researching them for an article I very nearly made the mistake of confusing the two and thought it would be very useful for others who might be liable to make the same mistake to have it clarified that they are not one and the same.
The ideal approach would to be a full entry for either or both figues, but until someone has the time and energy to do that, I feel it would be an un-necessary loss to remove this even if it does contravene the letter of the wiki law - at least until the subjects have been fleshed out.
Best wishes
Malikbek — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malikbek ( talk • contribs) 2019-08-22 18:09:50 (UTC)
The result was delete. Tone 08:39, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
Futurology from 2006. Very unclear what the significance of this list of companies is, or was. Rathfelder ( talk) 16:16, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. There's a lot of non-sequitur here that I had to sift through. Much of this is essentially arguing WP:INHERITED, which doesn't fly.
The strongest argument to keep is the list of sources presented, some of which are in reputable, mainstream, publications. However, some of these have been shown to be either passing mentions or obligatory local coverage, and thus don't bring much weight to a WP:N discussion. The one source that everybody agrees is totally solid is The Politico, but that's just one source, and one is not enough. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:40, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
I don't think this meets notability criteria. There are a couple of articles about the duo in a reliable source (one is a local writeup which I can't read due to a paywall) and the other is a local article about a drugs charge. The performances noted have, again, been at local festivals. Google search comes up with fewer than 100 results. Proposed deletion contested. ... discospinster talk 18:58, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
if a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. In my opinion, the Politico article by itself satisfies this requirement. All the other references in the article (except for the reference about their legal sentence) + the two mentions in WP:RS listed above should make this a no-brainer keep. Banana Republic ( talk) 22:41, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
I would also point out the worldwide trust in media is very low. [31] All of Wikipedia's "reliable sources" in the mainstream news media said Donald Trump was not going to be elected. Obviously, Trump was elected. And then Wikipedia's "reliable sources" in the mainstream media pushed the Trump-collusion conspiracy theory which Mueller's congressional appearance and report showed was a total joke. Trump is not going to be impeached in all likelihood. I realize it is hard to be a profitable paper or news organization in the age of the internet and political polarization, but Wikipedia's reliable sources list/rule needs a major revamping. Accordingly, Wikipedia:Ignore all rules makes perfect sense in the meantime. Knox490 ( talk) 22:03, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
You asked for reliable sources. Pointing out the mainstream news sources that Wikipedia considers reliable are no longer reliable is spot on and very relevant. Just yesterday, MSNBC retracted a story due to poor/sloppy journalism. [32]
The mainstream news pushing conspiracy theories, engaging in sloppy journalism and engaging in other egregious practices has caused their credibility to plunge in the minds of the public.
I am not happy about this state of affairs. Now I mainly follow important trends and largely ignore the media when possible because what they are often presenting is an alternative make believe universe. Knox490 ( talk) 14:08, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Rollidan ( talk) 04:25, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
This seems like a collection of news articles, not sure it belongs here. BigDwiki ( talk) 19:56, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Fenix down ( talk) 06:15, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
Artcle fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Simione001 ( talk) 04:01, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 07:14, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
Contested WP:PROD by an IP. Notability concerns; the subject of the article doesn't seem to have done anything notable, per WP's definition. There are a bunch of sources in the article, but the only ones that discuss the subject of the article in any remotely significant way are self-published, and therefore cannot be used to establish notability. WP:NAUTHOR doesn't apply, because this individual is not the author of a book, he is an editor of a book. ‑Scottywong | converse || 03:15, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Fenix down ( talk) 06:18, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
Non notable sportsperson. Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG nothing found in a berfore search. Dom from Paris ( talk) 16:13, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
entre os jogadores mais vitoriosos do futsal brasileiro/ "among the most successful players in Brazilian futsal"), [39] (
Um dos jogadores mais vitoriosos do futsal mundial("One of the most successful players in world futsal"), and [40]. Prior to playing in Brazil, he played in Iran. "There must be more sources." :-) – Leviv ich 17:51, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 07:14, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
Fails WP: BIO and WP:GNG, non-notable businessman with almost no coverage in WP:RS online. Article is sourced only by press releases, two of which don't mention him, along with a short, unremarkable piece he wrote for Campaign (magazine). Tracy Von Doom ( talk) 02:44, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. "on a TV show for 7 years, also was a drill sargeant in the US Marines and was involved with steroid use" is not really a keep argument; we need WP:SIGCOV for that. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 07:13, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
WP:BLP1E Meatsgains( talk) 01:29, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Tone 08:39, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
Non-notable relatively new musical artist. Does not meet WP:MUSICBIO. --- Coffeeand crumbs 00:41, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 07:13, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
Suspected hoax as the chart performance does not match for Simple Plan, Also the infoboxes don't match up as Ayo & Teo, "Break My Heart" and Hoodie suggest to be a song by
Hey Violet. However, I also checked the supposed chart performances and they don't match up either for that band. No music video under this name shows up for Simple Plan nor Hey Violet but one comes up for
Hey Violet. Reasons why I didn't speedy this is 1) a supposed source for the album name is
https://forums.lpunderground.com/t/simple-plan-taking-one-for-the-team-the-forerunners-edition/33754 but iTunes doesn't have it and 2) if this is indeed a hoax, it's a 2 year hoax.
MrLinkinPark333 (
talk)
00:39, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 07:12, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
Non-notable American diplomat. Was not able to find any RS about him. Per WP:POLOUTCOMES, ambassadors are not inherently notable. Natg 19 ( talk) 00:17, 23 August 2019 (UTC)