Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jesusland map (2nd nomination)

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

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. Further merger discussions can take place on the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 02:18, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jesusland map

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

A non-notable blog meme from shortly after the 2004 Presidential election. Doesn't seem to have any lasting significance, and I can find no evidence that it was ever covered in any reliable sources. The references section is terrible — mostly consisting of blogs, forums, and other such sites. There is a citation to a MSNBC exit poll, and another to a NY Times article, but neither of these sources even contain the term "Jesusland", nor do they mention the map. In fact, a large portion of this article (the "Analysis" section) constitutes original research. *** Crotalus *** 18:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only reliable source in the references section that really discussed the topic is this Toronto Star blog entry, but it makes no mention of a map or "Jesusland". This blog meme doesn't seem to have any coverage in reliable sources that would be necessary to meet our verifiability policy.--Chaser (talk) 19:57, 10 December 2009 (UTC) Changing to keep. Plenty of sources in the first AFD. This article could not be written any worse to establish the map's notability.--Chaser (talk) 22:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Received very wide circulation in late 2004, and has had a certain lasting influence in discussions of the alleged blue/red divide. Just from searching nytimes.com right now, I turned up http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/09/maps-fighting-disease-and-skewing-borders/ , http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/19/magazine/19wwln_lede.html?_r=1 , http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/12/magazine/12NEO.html , etc. etc. -- AnonMoos (talk) 20:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- P.S. Did the proposer even look at the first AFD discussions? AnonMoos (talk) 20:25, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's possible. I inadvertently missed it.--Chaser (talk) 22:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Certainly worth discussing somewhere. It is covered in a number of sources, like this book of maps released in 2009, this recent book of cultural criticism, this book, and this one, among others. (Just search for "map of Jesusland" at Google Books.) I don't know for sure if there's enough meat for an individual page, but we should say something about the Jesusland map somewhere. Zagalejo^^^ 20:50, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, sources meet WP:GNG. Andrea105 (talk) 00:00, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Red states and blue states as a subsection. While this is certainly notable enough to merit mention in that context, it really, truly isn't notable enough to genuinely need its own article. Bearcat (talk) 01:33, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested by the above. I agree that, while it has notability, it doesn't quite have enough for its own article. Umbralcorax (talk) 04:25, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in light of sources provided above. The subject is too trivial to deserve a whole section at Red states and blue states, but reasonable for a short independent article. EALacey (talk) 07:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A subsection of a parent topic's article demands a higher claim of notability than an independent article does? That's a new one. Bearcat (talk) 02:28, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By "trivial", I meant "frivolous" rather than "non-notable" in the Wikipedia sense. It's certainly "notable" in the sense of having independent sources, but it's not a major aspect of red states and blue states. EALacey (talk) 08:30, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is notable and verifiable from available sources. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 09:57, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reasons listed above. Everything counts (talk) 11:20, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge but definitely NOT A KEEP - There's enough here to merge nicely, but most of those sources (for example, check the NYT reference) don't ever mention the "jesusland map", which is an internet meme. The only reason there are sources is that they're referring to the purple map, not to some internet meme. This article is about the internet meme, and that meme isn't notable. The info in the article however is ripe for a merge, as talked about above. Shadowjams (talk) 10:06, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm OK with a merge, but just FYI, a lot of book sources (which don't seem to be used in the article) do specifically discuss the Jesusland map. Zagalejo^^^ 01:40, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per AnonMoos. This can stand on its own without a merge. I think this could generate enough hits specifically for "Jesusland" whereas a merge would require scrolling through an article that may not necessarily be of interest. freshacconci talktalk 16:48, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Enough reliable sources discuss the Jesusland map (under that name, too), and the article is big enough to stand alone. -- Avenue (talk) 09:40, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is a large amount of reliable, third-party information about this topic that even uses the same name as this article and many search engines lead to this page. There's also no need for a merge, the article is long enough to stand on its own. TimeClock871 (talk) 13:25, 15 December 2009 (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.