This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
The following was written but could not be saved because the AfD discussion was prematurely closed without allowing sufficient time for all input (at least a week).
@Chiswick Chap and @Safiel, I think we must base any rationales for noteworthiness one the WP Rules and Guidelines. The word "potential" does not, for example, qualify as a noteworthiness criteria, the word is not found in WP:GNG. Also, the number of sources mentioning a subject is specifically excluded as a criteria. A vast number of sources can be found on the topic of bathroom wallpaper, but I think we will agree that bathroom wallpaper is not a noteworthy WP topic. That fact that authors have characterized the positions of others as polemic does not establish polemic as a noteworthy topic in its own right. To establish polemic as warranting an article we need second and third party sources stating that plemic is a subject of note in its own right. I do not believe it is not enough to find sources that use the term to characterize the positions of others, particularly if it is used as a pejorative word to stigmatize views whom one disagrees. WP:GNG states:
- "'Significant coverage' addresses the topic directly and in detail." - We need sources specifically addressing the subject matter of 'polemic', which is a very different test from finding examples where the word is an adjective.
- "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline." - We need reliable sources describing a topic 'polemic' as an independent topic, and again this is more than finding people using the term as an adjective.
- "Sources should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability." - The sources *should be independent*, that is not tied to an issue or position, showing that polemic is more than just a common pejorative adjective.
I believe we need more than just the use of the use of the adjective in published works to justify a stand-alone article — otherwise we are in violation of the rule stating that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. A collection of people writing that one thing or another is polemic doesn't do this. The term to a great extent is subjective, so a history is not defined by examples alone. We need sources describing the subject of the article 'polemic' as a topic of note in its own right.
Additionally, based on WP:MERGREASON reason #3: Text: If a page is very short and is unlikely to be expanded within a reasonable amount of time, it often makes sense to merge it with a page on a broader topic. The years this article failed to develop and sustained very poor quality provide the best available indicator of its likelihood of being expanded into a full article in a reasonable period of time in the future. This lack of interest is also a valid measure of the topic's notability.
If the topic grows sufficiently to warrant an independent article, a separate article on 'polemic' can then be reasonably reinstated.
Afd discussions can be closed early, like all deletion discussions on Wikipedia. In this case, I think the early close was a bit rash. Nevertheless, realistically speaking, the likelihood of the end-result being something else than a "keep" is small, IMHO. Debresser (talk) 21:52, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
I have reopened the AfD discussion in light of the objection. Be advised that AfD is NOT a discussion forum for pursuing a merge and if support for deletion does not appear, most likely another editor will again procedurally close the discussion. Safiel (talk) 22:04, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
Safiel, I once again closed the AfD (I think). I didn't expect opposition, and have no interest in precipitating controversy. I think it would have been more appropriate to permit sufficient time for all interested parties to weigh in on the topic - and give me time to respond to the more recent posts (the abrupt closure prevented me from saving a response I was writing, which was pretty darned frustrating (just FYI).
Thank you for your efforts! I consider this subject resolved.