Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Turban effect

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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:51, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Turban effect[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I agree with the {{notability}} tag here. This is essentially an article on a specific journal article. It got some brief attention in popular press, but so do many studies. Perhaps this could be addressed at Islamophobia, if not WP:UNDUE. --BDD (talk) 13:29, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. --BDD (talk) 13:30, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~ - contents with Islamophobia. WP:NAD, but if Wikipedia were a dictionary, what is in this article is too narrowly focused and framed as part of a series on Islamophobia. Most of the links in the above "Find sources" lead to mentions of the "turban effect" as a fashion statement. Other religions besides Muslims wear turbans. Sikhs and many others non-Muslims in India wear turbans. — Maile (talk) 14:40, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Changing my vote per WP:NAD and WP:NOTNEWS — Maile (talk) 18:29, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - just a single academic paper mentioned in passing as "news." This is not a newspaper. This is not a particularly notable study, certainly one that is debatable as the article notes. This is worth deleting. If it becomes something that is covered in a book of similar studies, an article might be appropriate with a paragraph devoted to this study. In isolation, it is just one of thousands of papers that are published every year. Jason from nyc (talk) 15:12, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete , same arguement as Jason from nyc --Misconceptions2 (talk) 14:01, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.