Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jobwa


 * 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   delete. — A itias  //  discussion  19:31, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Jobwa

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Not a separate tenent of Buddhism; possible to merge, but little content  Chzz  ►  02:01, 13 May 2009 (UTC) Non-notable belief or opinion (Nom reasoning changed; I t hought that it claimed to be a part of Buddhist; I see now that this is not the case)   Chzz  ►  10:42, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * delete At best, not notable belief. At worst, vandalism. Unable to locate WP:RS to substantiate the article's content. I find nothing on Google to connect +Buddhism +Jobwa.
 * The ref in the article mentions the subject, Jobwa, as a stick dance.
 * No relevant G hits for author of the book that this appears in.
 * No Ghits for the book.
 * I don't understand the nom statement. If this is a tenet of Buddhism, it would need a source. If the nominator desires a merge, then the thing to do would be to source and propose a merger. (I had originally tagged for CSD as an attack, and it was thus deleted. Recreated, I PRODDED.) Still awaiting sourcing.  Dloh  cierekim  02:20, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete as garbage I've already deleted once before and consider a block of the user. PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:41, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * A further comment-- my PROD is still on the thing, and I still stand by my PROD. Not sure how that affects this. ;). If other eyes find suitable sourcing and notability I missed, willing of course to change to keep. My hope remains that this turns out to be legit, but with sourcing in another language. cheers   Dloh  cierekim  13:01, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. The Marshallese stick dance described in the reference is certainly notable, but I can see no evidence of the existence of the actual subject of the article, let alone of notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:46, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment If we determine this content is deletable, I'll be willing to correct the thing to the dance.  Dloh  cierekim  13:24, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: As an FYI, an article shouldn't be both PRODed and sent to AfD. The AfD process overrides PROD, so I removed the tag. (Also, previously deleted pages are not normally eligible for PROD). --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:23, 19 May 2009 (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.