Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iraq diaspora

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep (no conc) Whilst the arithmetic is borderline, the keep case much is stronger. The deletioners seem focused on the google notability of the term, but the article isn't about the term but the phenomenon, which verifiably exists. (if renaming is wanted, it does not need deletion). There seem plenty of citations available on the article - so that objection has been addressed. Clean-up required though. Docg 12:22, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Iraq diaspora

Iraq diaspora (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

non notable term see http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Iraq+diaspora%22 PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 06:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - nn neologism, 40 ghits. MER-C 06:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Neologism, original research. Jayjg (talk) 06:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above GabrielF 06:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom - neologism & V problems. SkierRMH,08:43, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom; relatively unknown neologism. TSO1D 15:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, source cited does not even use the term. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per all above. gidonb 16:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unsourced neologism.-- danntm T C 18:14, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --GHcool 18:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and Jayjg. Beit Or 19:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:08, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and Jayjg. Merge with Arab diaspora; it doesn't pass muster solo, but as part of a larger article, it could be helpful. -- weirdoactor t|c 00:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep but maybe retitle it to Iraqi diaspora. Shouldn't there be an article about the diaspora of all major countries? For example Greek diaspora and others at Diasporas[1]. Note also that there is an unfinished article at Arab diaspora, perhaps it should be rerouted and divided by country.. It's a worthy topic, if it gets worked on. Dan Carkner 03:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom Somitho 12:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. Its not a new word, it can't be, because its a phrase, not a single word. There should be articles on the Irish diaspora, Jewish diaspora, and Chinese diaspora, and there are. Change it to Iraqi diaspora for harmonization. Look here for a dozen other diasporas: Diaspora#List of notable diasporas or Category:Diasporas. Did anyone bother to read the articles on diaspora, or did they just read the two sentences in the Iraqi article? Google the proper term (Iraqi diaspora) and you get 497,000 hits. Please do some homework, and don't just read what others have written. Use your minds, not just your fingers. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 00:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
    Comment -- actually, google the quoted phrase "Iraqi diaspora", omitting the Wikipedia entries, there are about 900 hits. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:38, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment (iraqi diaspora -wikipedia) = 437,000 Ghits without quotations. Three well sourced references should be sufficient. This article has not been indexed by Wikipedia or Google yet. If I remember there is (or was) a 30 day (roughly) period for an article to get in the Google index in a mutual agreement with Google. Also Wikipedia doesn't index articles for what used to a be a week or so, to make sure spam and nonsense can be deleted. My search is without the quotation marks, I have moved them to parenthesis here. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 00:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
The quotation marks specify the search for "iraqi diaspora" only; your 437,000 hits are for articles with the word "iraqi" and the word "diaspora"...but not necessarily for "iraqi diaspora". -- weirdoactor t|c 01:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
    • That is correct! I am not denying that at all. Yet the articles are still concerning the Iraqi diaspora even though they may read: "Our aims are to encourage a healthy dialogue and to promote freedom of thought for Iraqis, both in Iraq and Diaspora (almahjer)." [2] "Diaspora Iraqis" gives an additional 300 hits. And as I said earlier, three good references should be enough, but you have to do research and not just kneejerk deletion. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 01:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Assume good faith -- we're quite capable of doing the research ourselves, I imagine many of us automatically do that when something is said to a neologism; nobody likes to be accused of kneejerk anything. Thank you. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above, and I think some of these other articles in Category:Diasporas need to be looked at as well. 6SJ7 03:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment kneejerk or groupthink fits, so I use it. 11 people commented on it as a neologism without taking the time to find and use the correct search term. I agree "we're ... capable of doing the research ourselves", but did anyone before Dan did on the 12 comment left? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 04:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Dickie boy; have you met WP:CIV? Or her friend WP:NPA? How about their pal WP:AGF? It's all fun and laughs to be a pedant; yes? Mayhap you should get a blog and do so...but NOT here. Uhn-kay? Thanks! -- weirdoactor t|c 05:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Is calling me "Dickie boy" an example of civility? or an example of irony? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 05:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
It certainly wasn't a personal attack. Maybe he was a bit blunt about it but it's true that this valid topic was slated for deletion without any open reasoning going on.Dan Carkner 13:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Please allow me to inventory his comments for you, Dan:
  • Did anyone bother to read the articles on diaspora, or did they just read the two sentences in the Iraqi article? - - insinuation of bad faith on the part of those who have voted to delete.
  • Please do some homework, and don't just read what others have written. Use your minds, not just your fingers - insinuation of bad faith, in addition to insulting our intelligence; a personal attack.
  • ...but you have to do research and not just kneejerk deletion - - insinuation of bad faith/insulting our intelligence; a personal attack.
  • Which ones? Did you read them?' - insinuation of bad faith.
  • kneejerk or groupthink fits, so I use it. - personal attack, albeit a mild one.
  • 11 people commented on it as a neologism without taking the time to find and use the correct search term - insinuation of bad faith/insulting our intelligence; a personal attack.
Should I post these on his talk page, with appropriate warnings; or will you perhaps have a talk with him about his obvious issues with civility? I don't think it's quite time for an RfC; but Mr. Norton is on a slippery slope, in my humble opinion. I understand that he is a strong inclusionist, and I respect his views, even as he does not seem to respect any but the inclusionist viewpoint. I am certainly no deletionist, and I don't deny that (as you've pointed out) this article is a worthy topic, if it gets a bit more fleshed out. But I don't like being preached to by an individual who isn't even trying to be polite in their accusations that those who have voted to delete the article are acting in bad faith, having done no research whatsoever. It makes me not want to listen to even polite, intelligent arguments such as yours. -- weirdoactor t|c 15:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep Written with WP:RS sources and is written in WP:NPOV manner and is a WP:N term. It should not be deleted. Thanks RaveenS 20:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep/merge keep if enough references can be found, although Iraqi refugees might be a better name for the article. Also one can merge the information into Arab diaspora, that article really needs to be expanded. --64.230.127.234 21:33, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.