Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chaldean Assyrians

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. Carlossuarez46 21:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chaldean Assyrians

Chaldean Assyrians (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This is part of a series of article recently created by EliasAlucard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), including Syriac Assyrians (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Some users have expressed the concern that this article reflects the views of politicised group and denies the views of others. The article name itslef expresses this view. Some of the material can be rewritten and included in more appropriate articles, but this article is clearly biased. — Gareth Hughes 22:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep This article, was first of all, not created by me. It was created by Dbachmann.[1] I moved the article into the more proper name Chaldean Assyrians, just to conform to Wiki standard in naming of ethnic groups, like for instance, Ashkenazi Jews, Sephardi Jews, etcetera. I then created Nestorian Assyrians and Syriac Assyrians, because those are other ethnic Assyrians groups, divided between different Churches. Garzo above, claims that I'm trying to deny the view of others. That is of course, needless to say, a blatant lie from Garzo's side, and he knows it. I did include in the article that many Chaldeans don't consider themselves Assyrians, right here I do not however, wish to include propaganda, that cannot be backed up with academic sources. Garzo, wants to cite opinions as if they were facts. I have cited sources in all three articles, from academic scholars, claiming that they're all Assyrians. These articles, should not be treated any differently, than Ashkenazi Jews, Sephardi Jews, etcetera. Deleting these articles, on very loose grounds, would be discrimination. The only reason why Garzo wants this article deleted, is because he disagrees with me; this is not about the article lacking notability. He even threatened me on the talk page with this ridiculous infantile threat Here's the choice: work with others and have influence, or stand alone and have none. [2] The Chaldean Assyrians are the majority of all Assyrians; that alone is a reason to have this article kept. A famous Chaldean Assyrian, for instance, is Rosie Malek-Yonan. If you can prove that they are anything other than Assyrians, fine, do it. If not, don't complain. Also, there is exactly nothing biased with this article. — EliasAlucard|Talk 01:10 02 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 09:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• speedy keep. This is at best a {{merge}} debate (to Chaldean Catholic Church, since the group is defined by adherents to that Church). The article is direcly taken from {{catholic}}, so its notability should be beyond dispute. dab (𒁳) 10:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Multiple independent sources. Afd is not a {{cleanup}} tag Skomorokh ^incite 10:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Skomorokh. WP:NPOV arguments are not a valid argument for deletion, but for cleanup. Under that argument, a cleanup or neutrality tag is most appropriate. Notability established by third party sources. Eliz81^{(talk)(contribs)} 12:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep: A minority group large enough to have a group identity is, well, large enough to have a group identity. Are there any customary deletion grounds the nom would like to cite beyond WP:IDONTLIKEIT?  RGTraynor  13:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep; the most this requires is a cleanup tag. Careful with the accusations though EliasAlucard - discourtesy should not be met with the same, even when provoked ;) EyeSerene^TALK 13:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

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.