Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nuwaubu
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. I considered redirect per SunCreator, but as the author of the article in question pointed out, "Nuwaubu is not nuwaubianism". Consensus is delete. v/r - TP 17:44, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nuwaubu[edit]
- Nuwaubu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable and only vaguely defined term whose references are primary or unreliable. Article really is a kind of essay consisting of synthesis. Read the last sentence: the meaning of the word, apparently, has yet to be defined. Drmies (talk) 01:31, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also included:
- Nuwaupu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Drmies (talk) 01:39, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This term is apparently a part of the belief system of Nuwaubianism, just so people know the context. The term's originator (mentioned but not linked in the article) is Dwight York. A. Parrot (talk) 01:50, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Both pages cover stuff that's within the scope of Nuwaubianism but is covered there in a better-sourced and less-POVish way. I would add Nuwaupian (created by the same author as Nuwaubu and Nuwaupu) to this AfD. —Moorlock (talk) 04:27, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I totally disagree with the notion the Nuwaubu article is non notable, because it is very notable in the theological and philosophical circles, and also in the media, and if in doubt, check on the internet in general (google the word Nuwaupu/Nuwaubu). Firstly, this article is predominately on the word Nuwaubu alone, and the article purposely avoids other related but independent topics as found in nuwaubianism which is a relatively new, generally broad term covering lots of areas at various levels of depth (look at the nuwaubianism content box). Secondly, I disagree with the notion that the references are unreliable, the only oversight I have done in my humble opinion, is to not cite enough references for the sources of the concepts written in the definition section of the article (this oversight will be corrected in the next 14 days, after which, I intend to expand the article still further in due time) These references that I will introduce as the sources of the concepts, also provide proof of non-synthesis. Thirdly, I do however agree that the last sentence in the article should be fully, and thoroughly read (please quote/paraphrase/cite more accurately and thoroughly so as not to accidentally mislead or cause confusion). And I Quote “To date, the word Nuwaubu has yet to be fully defined by Dr Malachi Kobina York.”. This clearly states that Dr Malachi Kobina York has given a definition but it is not fully complete and there is still more to come. Therefore, the definition that is give in the article is as much as what is available (research pending). Fourthly, while during construction of an article, if the linking to the originator or any other links are overlooked, wiki allows anyone else to do so. Fifthly, I would agree that nuwaubianism only partially covers the etymology of the word Nuwaupu which is covered in less than 70 words, but it goes no further than that. The actual definition of the word Nuwaubu is not given at all in any way, shape, or form what-so-ever. The article Nuwaupu goes into much more depth (over 1000 words just on the word Nuwaupu alone) as there is a lot of information mentioned here that is not found on the nuwaubianism page or any other wiki page for that matter. As for the Article Nuwaupian, this is not mentioned in this article for deletion page. It is not relevant, or appropriate to discuss other independent articles at this point in time. Lastly, I have not given a POV (point of view), but a detailed definition, and as aforementioned earlier in the second point, additional references will be provided proving it a legitimate independent definition. Logistical One (talk) 12:25, 5 July 2011 (UTC) — Logistical One (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Well, that "research pending" is the problem. We don't have an incomplete article--we don't have an article to begin with. To say, basically, "just google it", is not enough: there need to be reliable secondary sources that establish what this term is and what it means. As for sources, as I indicated, the sources in the article are mostly primary. Nothing is cited that could be called reliable and secondary. That you created two articles with only one letter difference only adds to the confusion, as does the existence of Nuwaupian. The way I see it (and that article offers nothing else), a Nuwaupian is an adherent of Nuwaubianism, plain and simple, and I intend to merge it as such: see Talk:Nuwaubianism#Another_merge:_Nuwaupian. Drmies (talk) 15:40, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yet again you are totally mistaken, as demonstrated in your response. You stated “Well, that “research pending” is the problem”, when in actuality the opposite is true. It is not the problem, but the solution because obtaining more references through research ensures articles are in order as demanded by wiki. You have also stated, and I quote “To say, basically, “just google it”, is not enough: there need to be reliable secondary sources that establish what this term is and what it means.” It is clear what you are trying to infer here. This section is basically about me saying to google for references, which is erroneous and misleading. What I actually said was, and I quote “I totally disagree with the notion the Nuwaubu article is non notable, because it is very notable in the theological and philosophical circles, and also in the media, and if in doubt, check on the internet in general (google the word Nuwaupu/Nuwaubu).” It is clear from this section that Notability is the only thing being discussed in that statement, and it has absolutely nothing to do with references (although references was raised and refuted in the second issue afterwards). This quote make the point that the evidence of notability is obvious when the word Nuwaupu/Nuwaubu is googled (even though proof notability is not required within an article). I will ask you for the second time to please quote/paraphrase/cite more accurately and thoroughly so as not to mislead or cause confusion. The point you have raised about confusing those visiting the articles because of one letter change is a weak and mute argument because the issue is addressed and totally clarified in the second sentence of the articles, and I quote “The word Nuwaupu is a more modern upgraded variant to the original word Nuwaubu because it was later revealed that the P and the B is interchangeable.” (the bold emphasis is what is on the actual article for additional clarity). Again I must stress that the Article Nuwaupian is not mentioned in this article for deletion page, and that it is not relevant, or appropriate to discuss other independent articles at this point in time. Logistical One (talk) 21:15, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You have shown that your arguments for the article Nuwaupu to be deleted is weak! So much so, that you have resorted to raising the fact that Nuwaupu is an article for deletion elsewhere within the issues of another article (especially after I have state that it is not appropriate to talk about it here). And I quote “Nuwaupian has nothing to offer that's reliably sourced. Phrases like "Our unity works on the principle of synergy, where the whole is greater than the sum of the parts" are indicative of POV editing, and the references are obviously not independent of the subject. Author has tried to make the article rely on Nuwaubu/Nuwaupu, which are both at AfD and likewise have no reliable, secondary sources. Drmies (talk) 15:43, 5 July 2011 (UTC)”[1]
- Firstly this is an inappropriate action that contradicts the wikipedea rules/code of conduct. It is regarded as Biased Canvassing, more specifically campaigning[2]. The article Nuwaupu (when compared to my first efforts) is now a fuller, more polished article with a more clarity and states valid quotes and references. The disputed article Nuwaupu falls in line in terms of quality as required by wikipedea.
- Secondly, since you are desperate to make a point using the article nuwaupian, lets go there then. The Nuwaupian page is a poor first attempt as was the Nuwaupu page, but the Nuwaupu page has been evolving, updated, upgraded, and improving and continues to do so. Unfortunately, the main reference to state the definition has been lost and at present I can’t find a replacement reference. Due to the articles main reference going down, I have stripped away what can’t be used and I have merged what was left of the Nuwaupian article into the Nuwaupu article.
- Thirdly you wrote, and I quote “Author has tried to make the article rely on Nuwaubu/Nuwaupu,”. This is an erroneous statement using a poor choice of words. The word Nuwaupian is derivative of the word Nuwaupu, just as the word American is a derivative of the word America. Both the word nuwaupu and the word nuwaupian are etymologically related. It is a relationship not a reliance which is why the statement is fundamentally flawed.
- Fourthly, you wrote and I quote “Phrases like "Our unity works on the principle of synergy, where the whole is greater than the sum of the parts" are indicative of POV editing, and the references are obviously not independent of the subject.” It was actually meant to be a quote, but the page was poorly constructed. (this is not an issue now because of the merger)
- Lastly, the sources of reference on etymology used in the Nuwaupu article are secondary and reliable. Unless you are a highly renowned etymologist, or can bring evidence that the references are wrong, and thus show that the sources of reference here are unreliable, any claims referring to unreliable sources on etymology is just an opinion. The reference used for the word nub[3] pertaining to gold was from a web site which can be proved to be both a secondary and reliable reference. Here is the evidence that a reference from the Online Etymology Dictionary[4] is secondary and reliable, as they state some of their sources, and the site gives you the option to scrutinize all their sources via their link. It is important to note that not all primary references are bad. Logistical One (talk) 20:52, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The most important point I will raise is that Nuwaubu is not nuwaubianism. When you look at both articles, nuwaubianism is a very general and broard term, while Nuwaupu is much more specific and thus detailed, which is why I have suggested a split on the nuwaubianism page. Please note that the Nuwaubu page is still in development. Logistical One (talk) 12:25, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I see nothing to suggest this is notable. Trivial sourcing, almost an advert for Dr Malachi Kobina York. IF the article is to stay it could do with being cut of the unsourced stuff. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 00:03, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Notable in wikipedia amounts to WP:GNG "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." Regards, SunCreator (talk) 21:41, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect both due to trivial sourcing redirect to Nuwaubianism. Else delete them. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 00:10, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- On Notability - Lets be real and honest, how can anyone say that the word Nuwaupu has no notability when there is so much controversy around it, even in wikipedea itself (read nuwaubianism article and then check the “View History” tab). Also nuwaubianism which you do acknowledge is notable is a new word not much more than 5 years old, and itself is a derivative of Nuwaupu which is over 40 years old. There is clearly a contradiction here.
- Lastly, Just because you were unable to find anything does not mean there is nothing there that does not show notability .It would be difficult to find proof of notability amongst the many thousands of entries in google, but if you look thoroughly you shall find. I did not sample all that I found (there was quite a lot actually) but here are a few links to get you started.
- These are links to news paper articles using the word Nuwaupu
- And the word Nuwaupian
- The word has clearly been found in two top ten articles, so there you have it. There is much more proof of notability out there on the net, but if you want more evidence you will have to do a more thorough search yourself (as I have done and shown with the proof above). This point on notability has now been addressed.
- On Trivial sourcing - Etymology is relevant as it has been done less thoroughly on nuwaupianism. The definition of the word and sources is even more relevant, but this is not done for the word Nuwaupu on wikipedea anywhere. If the etymlolgy of Nuwaupu with references showing a full and thorough breakdown of the word composition, and the definition of the word with reference showing where the definitions can be found, is in your opinion “trivial”, then different strokes for different folks. There are many who search for the definition and a breakdown of the word Nuwaupu, and can't easily find anything of substance. Now for the first time on wikipedea, they can. Everything has now been sourced and therefore nothing left to cut (and the article got bigger in the process, thanks for the tip). Lastly, as for the comment on advertising for Dr Malachi Kobina York, he is only mention twice, and there is no form of promotion of any kind in the article. Logistical One (talk) 09:14, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment and Logical Conclusion – The whole case promoting deletion is based on the following statements as submitted as follows:-
- “Non-notable and only vaguely defined term whose references are primary or unreliable. Article really is a kind of essay consisting of synthesis. Read the last sentence: the meaning of the word, apparently, has yet to be defined. Drmies (talk) 01:31, 5 July 2011 (UTC)”
- The section stating “Non-notable” has been proven false by the evidence submitted in the above links showing notability.
- The section stating “Vaguely defined terms” is also false because the definitions were clearly described in detail as found in the references , and are simplified in the summery of the article.
- The section stating “reference are primary or unreliable” is totally unsubstantiated as all of the references are reliable, and most of the reference are secondary in nature. An example of secondary reliable reference in relation to the online etymology dictionary was given in an earlier section above. There are a few references that I will admit are primary in nature, but they are allowable under the wikipedea policy concerning references. The primary references are for descriptinve purposes only as stated in the policy, and I quote “A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source.”, as found on the Wikipedea:No original research[5] page. Due to the fact that all references follow the wikipedea guidelines, all references used in the Nuwaupu article are valid.
- The section stating “kind of essay consisting of synthesis.” Is note based on any facts at all. This section is voicing an opinion or viewpoint which is totally unsubstantiated. The references for the sources of the definitions provided prove it is not synthesised.
- The section stating “Read the last sentence: the meaning of the word, apparently, has yet to be defined” was totally discredited in my first response (see above responces).
- The logical conclusion based on evidence submitted is that the whole argument of deletion has been proven unnecessary, and unfounded. The articles Nuwaubu/Nuwaupu should be kept and additional it should not be merged into another general article of limited details. Additionally, I will redirect the Nuwaubu article to the Nuwaupu article to avoid any confusion, and soon afterwards make it even more clear and precise. All the issues raised have been addressed. Logistical One (talk) 20:52, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
References Of Evidence[edit]
- 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.