Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arifana


 * 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. W.marsh 14:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Arifana

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

seems very interesting but it has been orphaned for a long time and has one source...  What do others think? Postcard Cathy 23:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete unless it gets sourced a bit more. ~EdBoy[c] 00:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - A stub with one source like that is already above the curve. Articles on Turkish culture being orphaned is something we should be fixing by creating more articles, not deleting the ones we have. Neier 01:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree with your reasoning. If I find a Turkish town of 50 people whose sole claim to fame is that one of their residents can have people request various Turkish folk songs and he can either fart them in tune or burp them in tune and there was a story about it in Istanbul's major newspaper, does that mean it should stay based on the fact it is a stub wiht one source and is already above the curve?Postcard Cathy 13:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Bad analogy. Towns are notable, with or without folk-song farting citizens.  If it received multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable sources, then the person's article would probably not get deleted at AFD either. If you want to go after the veracity and/or the importance of the cited book, then, that's another matter.  As it stands, "orphaned for a long time" is not a deletion criteria.  Neier 11:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't intend to imply orphan status is the sole criteria for deletion because I have seen orphaned articles that do indeed show wiki worthiness.  But I disagree with you on your implication that a town of 50 who is most notable for a folk song farting contest is not notable.Postcard Cathy 14:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. Right now this stub barely rises above the level of a dictionary definition, but it is sourced, and it looks like it has potential for expansion.  It even has a Wikipedia Project that has an eye on it, and I expect will eventually get around to helping expand it.  ≈≈Carolfrog≈≈♦тос♦ 03:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletions.   --   &rArr; bsnowball  10:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Cal, it hasn't ben expanded in almost two years of being on wiki. Why should we expect it to be expanded in the near future?  Postcard Cathy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.145.243.196 (talk • contribs) 2007-05-30 16:16:24)
 * Because that is how articles develop here. Please read our Editing policy, the Guide to improving articles, and our Deletion policy.  We don't delete stubs with potential for expansion.  We expand them. Uncle G 11:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * And you wait a reasonable time for it to be expanded. I agree with waiting.  But at some point you have to say we have waited long enough, it hasn't been expanded in x length of time and based on that, we have to wonder if it will be expanded.  Postcard Cathy 14:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep, stubs dont have to be expanded to be useful. John Vandenberg 13:25, 3 June 2007 (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.