Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sephardic Pizmonim Project (3rd nomination)


 * 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.  

Sephardic Pizmonim Project
The result was Redirect to Pizmonim. Hemlock Martinis 06:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC) AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This article has gone through two prior AfDs which both ended with no consensus. In the last AfD, four of the five some of the "keep" votes noted that the article was still in development, still just a stub, give it some time, etc. Well, it's over six months later and the article has gone nowhere. The reason for this is very simply that it's a non-notable organization, a one man operation with no credible third party references to speak of (as I demonstrated in the last AfD). Let's put and end to this. DLand TALK 20:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as nom.--DLand TALK 20:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete: Not enough WP:RS to satisfy the primary criterion of WP:N to write a WP:V, WP:NPOV article. Leuko 20:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - Leuko said it perfectly. -- Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor  ( tαlk ) 21:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions.   -- the wub  "?!"  21:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions.   -- the wub  "?!"  21:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. You don't get three tries, unless something very significant has changed. Only one person in the last AfD even mentioned the "not enough time to tell yet" argument, and chances are he would have voted Keep anyway. Besides, your claim that no progress has been made since the last AfD is questionable. And even if it were the case, "no one has bothered to make this article good yet" is not a reason for deletion. — xDanielx Talk 00:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Response: 1. The first two times were without consensus, meaning that it has not yet been decided if the article is worth keeping. So, yes, I do "get three tries". 2. You're right about the keep votes, I was looking at the first AfD, but my point still stands. 3. My argument for deletion is not that no one has tried to make the article good, but rather that the article is not good and cannot become good unless the project becomes notable, which it currently is not.--DLand TALK 04:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete as per nom. --Nenyedi Talk Deeds@ 00:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I argued for keep earlier, on the basis that sources would appear, and they have. I added one from a peer-reviewed journal .  Published in 1988. I do not know why I missed it last time around. DGG (talk) 02:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC) see below
 * Response You may have missed it the last time around because while it is relevant to the subject of the article, it makes no mention of the Sephardic Pizmonim Project, for the obvious reason that it was published in 1988, long before the project came into existence! Forgive me, but this is a far cry from a scholarly source about the project.--DLand TALK 04:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, as I mentioned last time, this article has significant historical value as a project dedicated to preserving ancient culture. It's not the kind of topic that would be heavily sourced on the internet, at least in English. -- M P er el  04:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Response I can't see how that argument helps the article survive the standards of WP:N. Sure, it's an important cause, but it's not notable and the burden of proof is on those who would vote keep to show that it is.--DLand TALK 12:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I could not find any mention of this organization in the harvard link. I do not have access to JSTOR link, so cant comment on that yet Corpx 05:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - Notability is a relative term in this case. First, on a relative basis there are not that many Jews in the world today; we are talking about, in a statistical sense, an insignificant number of people. When the topic is a subset of the main group, we are talking about a small group indeed. However, from a cultural perspective I would think that this is a valid topic. Though it may have significant value to the Jewish community at large, it is also of value to humanity at large. I also agree that the article needs work; just using proper English would help. However, I think this is both notable and valid. You gotta admit, when we look at the rediculous number of articles devoted to Pokemon (who could possibly care about something so trivial, but we have got 'em in spades), it is not too much to ask to maintain an article about something that is actually real. --Storm Rider (talk) 06:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Frustrated response: This "organization" doesn't meet any notability standards, not even "on a relative basis" - irrespective of how culturally valid a topic it is. Please, please remember that we have to follow WP:N, and specifically WP:CORP, no matter how compelling an article looks at first glance.--DLand TALK 02:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, mainly because of xDanielx. Also, what Storm Rider said. Mathmo Talk 01:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per lack of significant coverage for this organization.  The one link in there does not mention this organization at all and I'm not sure about the JSTOR link Corpx 03:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete and redirect to Pizmonim. I would have suggested a merge, but I checked and found a section on "Sephardic Pizmonim Project" already in the "Pizmonim" article, nearly a word-for-word copy of the article under discussion.  The Project is not notable per the standard criteria of WP:MUSIC - it's a local undertaking, and the figures of sales are not referenced.  Most of the references and links in the article have more to do with Pizmonim in general than with this particular project; hence the logic of a merge. Shalom Hello 19:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete and redirect I didn't even think of checking for it in the Pizmonim article. I think Shalom's proposal make the most sense, pending increased notability. It's a reasonable way to deal with this.DGG (talk) 21:13, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I also wouldn't be opposed to redirecting it to Pizmonim, I think I even said as much last time, that it was a reasonable alternative, given its existing coverage in that article. -- M P er el 22:28, 10 August 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.