Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yaheh Hallegua

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. Stifle (talk) 15:24, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yaheh Hallegua[edit]

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

This is a BLP about a woman of unusual ethnicity, and no other claim to notability that I can see. The reliable sources on her have not focused on any achievements (she doesn't have any), but rather the fact that she might be the last of the Cochin Jews, because of an apparent disinterest in reproduction. The article currently focuses on this disinterest, and cannot do otherwise, as that's the only reason she's mentioned in notable media. I believe this situation violates the spirit of BLP, and I do not blieve the problem is reparable. I think her name should be redirected to Cochin Jews. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sad Lil Artsy Guy (talk • contribs) 19:09, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep due to this lady having been covered directly and in detail in multiple reliable sources (as in, WP:SIGCOV and WP:RS). I have researched the topic in print and online, and am confident that more or less every scrap of relevant material has been used and is cited in the article. The article does indeed centre on her position as the youngest female Cochini Jew and her marital status, and that reflects the references I've found. The nominator seems to think that the sources listed do not constitute direct significant coverage of her as a person; to put it quite simply, they do and I am happy to provide copies of any of the offline ones on request. I'm assuming that they haven't read The Last Jews of Kerala, the most extensive source, because otherwise they wouldn't have made such an absurd claim. (Also, if the nominator is seeking a redirect, then this is the wrong venue anyway. And the nominator seems to be suspiciously new. And the nominator didn't sign their nomination. But otherwise good.) ╟─Treasury Tag►secretariat─╢ 18:13, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Suspicious of what? Thanks for correcting the lack of signature. No, I have not read The Last Jews of Kerala. Does it document Ms. Hallegua's achievements? In any case, I'm happy to switch venues if that's more appropriate. Sad Lil Artsy Guy (talk) 18:18, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, I have not read The Last Jews of Kerala. In that case, what, pray, qualifies you to state that the references listed in the article are inadequate? ╟─Treasury Tag►secretariat─╢ 18:19, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And the nominator seems to be suspiciously new. -- The nominator is not me, in contrast what you are clearly insinuating. Stop the personal attacks on people who don't share your very particular set of opinions, or we will be forced to change the venue alright. --195.14.197.197 (talk) 19:10, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator seems to think that the sources listed do not constitute direct significant coverage of her as a person; to put it quite simply, they do -- Yeah, well, you know, that's just... like, your opinion, man, and I for one respectfully but decidedly disagree. Should the material be outright deleted? No. Is Yaheh Hallegua herself notable, independent of the social, ethnic and cultural situation and the accompanying media coverage and controversy surrounding her status as the last woman of childbearing age of her ethnicity? No, absolutely not. Move the article to something more appropriately named and refocus it to discuss not primarily (by herself completely non-notable) Yaheh Hallegua, but the entire (notable) situation. --195.14.197.197 (talk) 19:03, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just to confirm – you've read The Last Jews of Kerala have you? Because that's the only way you could assess whether or not it contains significant coverage of Ms Hallegua. Is Yaheh Hallegua herself notable, independent of the social, ethnic and cultural situation and the accompanying media coverage and controversy surrounding her status? No. You could say that about anyone. Is Barack Obama notable other than having been elected Senator and then President? Is Charles Dickens notable other than having been a massively popular writer? The threshold we have here on Wikipedia is about whether or not a person has received significant coverage, not whether they have some innate biological trait which makes them interesting. ╟─Treasury Tag►Not-content─╢ 19:06, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
that's the only way you could assess whether or not it contains significant coverage of Ms Hallegua -- Complete and utter nonsense. The question to ask is whether or not she is notable independent of the social, ethnic and cultural situation and the accompanying media coverage and controversy surrounding her status as the last woman of childbearing age of her ethnicity. The answer to that is: no. Period. Anyway, your personal attacks and assumption of bad faith make it impossible to discuss with you, even apart from your absent sense of decent self-doubt, and apart from your apparent unwillingness to even enter an actual discussion and acknowledge other people's viewpoints and arguments. --195.14.197.197 (talk) 19:16, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is notable outside of their socialcultural environment. Without our social and cultural relevance, we are simply masses of cells. I'm slightly stunned that you've invented such a novel argument that I'm reduced to bringing metaphysics into a deletion discussion. I am asserting that Ms Hallegua has received significant coverage, directly and in detail, in multiple reliable sources. And that is the required standard.
I'm not sure what "personal attacks" you're referring to so I'll just have to ignore that bit. ╟─Treasury Tag►secretariat─╢ 19:20, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is notable outside of their socialcultural environment. -- The social, ethnic and cultural situation and the accompanying media coverage and controversy surrounding her is notable. She (by virtue of anything she did) is not. I really cannot help you if you're actually incapable of understanding that much.
The personal attack I am referring to is that you are trying to undermine the nominator's position by insinuating that he is likely a sockpuppet. It is the textbook definition of an argumentum ad hominem. Playing dumb will not get you out of this. Just stop the personal attacks. Or keep them up. It's up to you. But they are personal attacks. --195.14.197.197 (talk) 19:28, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how else I can explain this. Wikipedia policy does not require people to be notable "independent of the social, ethnic and cultural situation." The bar is set lower than that. I've already linked you to the page, so I don't understand why you are insisting that Ms Hallegua must meet your elevated standard. ╟─Treasury Tag►person of reasonable firmness─╢ 19:40, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You don't have anything to explain, just things to understand. Your "article" is a Wikipedia:Coatrack, and it should be moved to a title which reflects the actual article subject, which is not Yaheh Hallegua, but the situation and controversy surrounding her. Unless and until you finally give up your aggressive resistance to these facts, it's useless trying to argue with you. --84.44.228.173 (talk) 09:54, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment for closing admin: the above bolded !vote is probably a duplicate, since the dynamic IP appears to be the same as 195.14.197.197 (talk · contribs) above. ╟─Treasury Tag►Chief Counting Officer─╢ 10:07, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
LOL. You just completely discredited yourself. So you are counting votes in AfDs by counting comments with bolded words? A-HAHAHAHAHA. And you truly believe that the closing admin is as uninformed as you and will treat this as a poll instead of determining consensus by weighing the actual arguments presented? Seriously, dude, get a grip. And yes, it is a "duplicate" comment by me. Obviously. Please stop being so offensive and intentionally provocative. --84.44.228.173 (talk) 10:14, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hint: if you are warning editors "stop being so offensive and intentionally provocative," it's usually not a good idea to preface that with immature outbursts of the, "LOL A-HAHAHAHAHA," variety [1] – ╟─Treasury Tag►co-prince─╢ 11:01, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subject is (at least presumptively) the last of the Paradesi Jews, and is referred to in literature in that regard; her situation is fairly well documented in reliable sources and the article appropriately cites them. As comparison, although more extreme, we have articles for people who are the last known speakers of languages, and others who are the last survivors of their ethnic group or culture, such as the Lone Woman of San Nicolas Island and Ishi, and probably could have articles for others, such as the "Tanaru Isolated Indian" (there's certainly enough coverage). However, I agree with the concerns raised on talk about the tone of the article and its use of quoted passages. There is no need to cast the subject, her personality, or her decisions in a negative light even if sourced statements allow us to do that. Still, that's an editorial correction and not a matter of deletion. Serpent's Choice (talk) 19:23, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To what purpose is it necessary to mention that she is "periodically shrilling instructions to cover their bare shoulders, or brusquely turning away those who disrespectfully wore above-the-knee skirts or shorts." She has been identified as being "notoriously frosty with visitors." The use of these quotes seems irresponsible as it seems to give these opinions the credence of wikipedia itself. If you want to mention that she is the last Cochin Jew then fine, but these personal attacks on her person (even if they were found in some book) seem unnecessary, she is after all a private citizen and it seems highly unfair to her to have these nasty comments about her reproductive choices kept on Wikipedia which claims to be a storehouse of knowledge. Similarly the comment about her dog being her only known hobby, seems like it does not at all have to be on Wikipedia, rather it seems like something one might read in a tabloid. If this article is going to stay it needs to be rewritten to respect this individual as a private citizen. Ahassan05 (talk) 05:53, 2 June 2011 (UTC)ahassan05[reply]
These facts are very prominently mentioned in reliable sources. I'm sorry if this disappoints you. ╟─Treasury Tag►co-prince─╢ 07:40, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry if this disappoints you. -- Please stop being so aggressive towards anyone with a differing opinion. --84.44.228.173 (talk) 09:57, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Those references within the article are more than enough to satisfy general notability. They are from national media and news sources that have a strong history of fact checking, and cover both the subject in reasonable depth as well as supporting the statements within the article. Lord Arador (talk) 06:21, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Heck, I read an article on her myself last year. Frankly, a great deal of the blather above constitutes content dispute, which is properly dealt with in the article. Beyond that, the nom's completely offbase. It is no part of Wikipedia policy or notability guidelines to speculate on - or make value judgments concerning - the reasons someone is famous, and it is a curious fallacy that BLP mandates we never say anything about a subject that anyone might consider disparaging or embarrassing. Rather, we can say nothing that is not impeccably sourced. The subject meets the GNG going away, and the further assertion that the GNG somehow doesn't count because her notoriety is inseparable from her group? Yeah, and Bobby Orr's notoriety stems solely from having been a pretty decent hockey player. So what? Ravenswing 11:51, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's a curious fallacy that BLP mandates we never say anything about a subject that anyone might consider disparaging or embarrassing. It's also a complete straw man. This is, currently, a biographical article about a woman's refusal to marry. Serpent's Choice believes the situation can be improved, and I'm happy to work with him on that -- I don't think the article is fixable, but I'm happy to discuss the possibility that I'm wrong with those who are willing to honestly approach the problem. Sad Lil Artsy Guy (talk) 09:45, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: It's not at all a straw man, judging from the comments above. Ravenswing 11:32, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is too, I said it most recently, neener neener neener. Thanks to those contributing to the discussion who haven't mischaracterized the opposing arguments or otherwise played silly buggers. Sad Lil Artsy Guy (talk) 20:15, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete This is an article about a 38 year old woman who's notability is that she doesn't want to marry one of her cousins?!!! Reliable sources are cited in an article to support a claim of notability. They do not create notability. As an example, if a man is mentioned numerous times in RS that he walks his dog every morning and eats raisin bran, this would not justify a WP article about him. At most, his name could be cited in the dog walking article or the raisin bran article. This article is confusing notability with sources. Joe407 (talk) 03:46, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, we're not confusing sources with notability. You are confusing trivial coverage with significant coverage. Wikipedia policy requires that a person has received significant coverage, and this lady has. Your comment does nothing to demonstrate otherwise. ╟─Treasury Tag►collectorate─╢ 07:47, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The only one who is confusing things is once again you. Joe407 is right on the money. --84.44.228.173 (talk) 09:56, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The only one who is confusing things is once again you. Well, me and the three other (experienced) editors arguing for 'keep' perhaps. ╟─Treasury Tag►prorogation─╢ 09:57, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're apparently not reading or not comprehending my comments. Consider that I agree that (most of) the material should be kept, but it is very clearly at the wrong place, and the page Yaheh Hallegua should be moved and redirected. There is also precedent for this, even when deceased individuals are concerned (cf. Death of Ian Tomlinson (a featured article, no less)). --84.44.228.173 (talk) 10:10, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Or, oddly enough, he's not agreeing with you. It's quite uncivil to presume that the only reasons anyone might have for disagreeing with you are laziness or stupidity. Ravenswing 16:44, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I see plenty of coverage in RS. For me the only question is whether such coverage is trivial or non-trivial. TT, which of the sources you present discuss her in depth? --Dweller (talk) 10:22, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Last Jews of Kerala is definitely the most comprehensive, devoting ~5 (non-consecutive) pages to Ms Hallegua, her background, her job, her world-view, her pet – and also her fashion and her make-up, though I didn't include this in the article! The Rough Guide gave her a half-page 'infobox' which, again, covered her and her job in some detail. I appreciate that my designating the two printed sources as being most significant puts you in a rather difficult position, but I understand that Serpent's Choice (talk · contribs) has read the Fernandes book, so could no doubt verify its usefulness here. ╟─Treasury Tag►sheriff─╢ 10:58, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, I trust you. --Dweller (talk) 11:25, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources are reliable, coverage is non-trivial. --Dweller (talk) 11:25, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with Dweller --Tall.kanna (talk) 19:18, 3 June 2011 (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.