Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Culture of the Arab States of the Persian Gulf


 * 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. postdlf (talk) 22:09, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Culture of the Arab States of the Persian Gulf

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )


 * Delete per WP:LISTCRUFT archetype and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Irānshahr (talk) 21:35, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 28 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Neutral - in its current form it shouldn't stay, but it could be repurposed into a general non-listy article...if anyone's willing to put in the work, of course. Ansh666 17:47, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, nobody has been bothered to put in the work in this case in more than five years. Irānshahr (talk) 14:33, 30 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Good outline article. More information could be added.  More useful than any category would be.   D r e a m Focus  20:59, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and WP:LISTCRUFT are relevant here. Irānshahr (talk) 14:42, 30 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Topic is highly notable, covered in whole books, . Vague references to policies and essays by the nominator are meaningless unless explained and justified -there is nothing "indiscriminate" in a well-defined notable topic. -- Cycl o pia talk  13:46, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The topic has not been nominated here - the article has. There is nothing at all wrong with the topic; a proper article could be written on the topic if somebody was so inclined. The article in its present form (which hasn't been improved in over five years) is what has been nominated for deletion. So your keep vote based on notability of topic is irrelevant because the the merit of the topic was never questioned. Irānshahr (talk) 14:26, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for invalidating your own nomination, then, given that our deletion policy explicitly says that if an article can be fixed by editing then it should not be deleted. And you acknowledge it is the case. That it hasn't been done in five years is irrelevant, since we don't have a deadline. You can be bold and do it now, if you wish. Or we could wait. In any case, deletion is not cleanup. -- Cycl o pia talk  14:29, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Your userpage explains all. You're an ideological "anti-deletionist". Well, I have different standards to you. I favour quality over quantity. Having no article is better than having a bad article. But it's clearly pointless to nominate anything with you around who opposes deletions by default. Irānshahr (talk) 15:12, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ad hominem, but no, while I am open on the fact that I am on the inclusionist side of WP philosophies, I do not oppose deletions by default. There is stuff that I fully agree oughts to be deleted from WP: hoaxes, things made up in a day, and unverifiable topics are the first that come up to my mind. We also have a notability policy that explains what is considered suitable for Wikipedia and what not -I may be occasionally at odds, personally, with it, but I respect it and I don't ask utterly unnotable topics to be kept. What I am "ideological" about is attempts to delete articles about topics which instead should not, based on our policies and guidelines. Now, I explained above that our policies require us, in general, to keep articles when the article can be fixed by editing. Your deletion rationale addresses problems that you acknowledge can be fixed by editing and improving the article. Therefore you just shown that your nomination rationale is invalid, according to our policies and guidelines. Make of that what you wish, but it has little to do with my "ideology". -- Cycl o pia talk  15:32, 1 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone  00:35, 6 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - the arguments made for deletion are not convincing. This is not an 'indiscriminate collection of information': it is the beginnings of an article, if a primitive one, about the culture of the Gulf Arab states. That's a legitimate topic, and even if the article doesn't have a lot of content at the moment, what it does have (essentially a list of links) is perfectly fine and violates no policies. This article should be improved, not deleted. Robofish (talk) 12:23, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - AfD discussions should always be about the topic not the article as it may currently be. Notability concerns the topic, of course, and in this case there can be no doubt it is notable with a rich history and many aspects - indeed, several of these such as the music or the food would themselves be notable in their own right. There's even a book about the culture of a single gulf company - Al-Jazeera. I've started a Bibliography. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * This nomination never had anything to do with the notability of the topic, and if you'd have read this page you'd have known that, because I stated so quite clearly above. It was nominated purely because it is an indiscriminate list with no encyclopedic value ie. WP:LISTCRUFT, and in more than five years nobody has cared to make an article of it. People voting to keep it should put some work into it if they care about it so much. Irānshahr (talk) 19:49, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I read your statement. May I remind you of the need for civility at all times, and the policy of no personal attacks. Notability is however the key concern here, as it is in the overwhelming majority of AfD cases. Whatever your reasons, the fact is that this is a badly-written article on a good and notable topic. The article needs to be edited, which is our normal work. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:29, 7 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Strong keep, definately a subject worth an article. Should be expanded, wikified and referenced properly, but not deleted. --Soman (talk) 13:39, 9 July 2013 (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.