Geez People – Endorse, permit userfication. There is good consensus here that the AfD result is correct, given the current article. However, there is also a feeling that this might be a legitimate topic for an article. If anybody wants to work on finding better sourcing, let me know and I'll restore this to your user space. – -- RoySmith(talk)02:02, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
I think that a consensus was not reached and that the reason given by the nominator and 1 delete is that there is Geez language but not Geez people, I think the reason for that is when the article is written initially most of the sources used were about the language but later on I did add several sources talking about the people. The other delete is because the user has issues on the content of the article.
The article in question is about an ancient people who made up the ethnic and cultural stock of Kingdom of Aksum and Dʿmt. Historically they are very important people in the history of Ethiopia like the ancient Latins whom are similarly ancient people who made up the ethnic and cultural stock of the Roman Empire and are important people in the history of Europe and the World. One example of ancient Latins importance is they developed a script which much of the world uses for writing, and Geez script developed by Ge'ez people is used to write languages in Ethiopia and Eritrea. Considering less importance of Ge'ez people in world history and since there is no more people called Ge'ez there are very few sources indicating the people. I don't know how many reliable sources should be supplied to prove notability but I did manage to find 4 sources from Google books as can be seen here The Iconographic Encyclopaedia of the Arts and Sciences, Volume 1, A History of African Archaeology, A Century of British Orientalists, 1902-2001 and here Ethiopia: A Cultural History. All 4 sources says Geez people/Ge'ez people and if the 4 book writers believe it is a linguistic group (but not an ethnic-group) they could have indicated uncertainty by saying "Geez speaking people" instead of saying "Geez people".
Not an area I know a lot about. Looking at the discussion, I think NC or delete are both reasonable outcomes. The sources supplied aren't really detailed enough to make it over the GNG. I'll not formally !vote here because my lack of knowledge in the area makes it hard for to have any idea what the right thing is to do. But from my limited perspective, the discussion leaned toward delete for what look to be reasonable reasons. Better (and ideally more detailed) sources would help. Hobit (talk) 14:54, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with Hobit that the AfD discussion seemed to turn on technical arguments beyond my areas of knowledge. Might I suggest you ask for it to be userified where you can work on it to address objections there before returning it to mainspace? I believe that would be the best way forward. Jclemens (talk) 00:41, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. but that doesn't mean we couldn't have an article if there are good sources. I think the AFD discussion wasn't so much about whether the topic is notable but rather was there really a group of "Geez people" or were there simply some people who spoke Geez. I'm rather sympathetic to your argument when you quote "Drewes (1962) suggested that an indigenous Semitic- speaking (Ge'ez) people were already living in northern Ethiopia in the early 1st millennium BC. These people formed the basic ethnic and cultural stock for both the pre- Axumite and Axumite states".[1] This suggests to me an ethnolinguistic group but other people at AFD didn't seem to agree. And is Drewes (in 1962) a good person to be quoting? The snippets aren't anywhere near enough to demonstrate the other opinions at AFD are categorically incorrect (and I know nothing at all about anything). Maybe even scholars dispute the matter. Another suggestion is to enhance the Ge'ez language or Ge'ez script articles to tell us more about the people who used this language. Thincat (talk) 18:02, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
I have discussed this with Ricky81682 who originally deleted this and I am prepared to substantially edit the BAFE page to gain restoration/approval. BAFE (talk) 14:36, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point me to the discussion with Ricky81682? I don't seem to be able to find any such discussion on his current talk page, nor any edits which suggest such a discussion in your edit history. I can also see you don't even appear to have followed the instructions here on notifying the deleting admin. Not only is there the concern that the article was relisted without any significant improvement, I also get concerned with your comments here which seem to suggest you don't understand what an encyclopedia is about, let alone how wikipedia works. Can you tell me which reliable third party sources discuss the topic of BAFE directly and in detail? --82.14.37.32 (talk) 15:23, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted. Procedurally valid close. I also share the above concerns that the nominator is not here to improve Wikipedia and agree with the IP's broader analysis. No means no. MER-C06:20, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In order to take this request forward, please provide reliable independent third-party sources which discuss BAFE in detail. As you are signing as BAFE I can only assume that you are somehow connected with BAFE and must therefore ask you to confirm you have read and will comply with the conflicts of interest policy. Stifle (talk) 08:10, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The conversation between myself and Ricky 81682 as follows:
On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 11:13 AM, Ricky wrote:
As explained in the below discussion:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Draft:BAFE_(British_Approvals_for_Fire_Equipment)
Deleting a single sentence and resubmitting it is not actively listening to the concerns of the reviewers. Further, it's been reviewed seven times by five different reviewers each of whom provided separate comments to you and which clearly were entirely ignored in place of minute changes and resubmitting it.
You can request that it be restored here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion
However, I doubt it will be restored unless you should an actual interest in actually taking the reviewers' concerns seriously as opposed to making very minor changes and requesting review again. And while you may ask for others to work on it, no one has found the necessary secondary sources and have no interest in doing so.
Good luck,
Ricky
I wish to add this page as BAFE is an important organisation whilst there is no Government regulation in the fire safety sector. I would like a reference to it on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fwisniewski (talk • contribs) 14:42, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"an important organisation", as requested by a couple of people, wikipedia understands an organization to be notable based not on the mere assertion of editors, but by reliable third party sources, intellectually independent of the subject, writing about it directly and in detail. Do you have those sources? --82.14.37.32 (talk) 22:45, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[2] has a couple paragraphs of coverage. There are lots of passing references, but all seem to basically just say "BAFE certification is good". [3], [4]. We probably should have an article on this topic or, perhaps better yet, cover it in some other article (do we have an article on fire safety underwriters or the like?). Hobit (talk) 23:14, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Yes of course WP should cover this topic and it's a shame if it is the wrong size and shape to fit into one of our article pigeon-holes and there is no convenient shelf to put it on. The references Hobit has found aren't really enough to pass muster according to our notability criteria but we really should have a situation where we can accept topics when a number (even a small number) of highly reputable sources say (even in passing) that a topic is very important. But, even given all that, is there sufficient objective material to write an article in this case? I can't see your attempts. Thincat (talk) 18:27, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
