Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Handedness of the President of South Africa

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. KTC (talk) 00:10, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Handedness of the President of South Africa[edit]

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

Hardly seems necessary, doesn't really belong on here. JQTriple7 ^talk 23:01, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm hard-pressed to find a policy this violates, but it just seems way too mundane for an encyclopedia. Handedness can be noted on the article page of the person, if at all. I doubt it would even work as a category, since it would be far too broad to be of any use. clpo13_(talk) 23:07, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 23:07, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 23:07, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wait to see if reliable sources are found and added. Clearly if it is not sourced it should not remain, but it still seems early. We have Handedness of Presidents of the United States which does have sources, so it is possible to have sources for such an article. 331dot (talk) 23:10, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why does that exist. Well, at least that means there's precedent... clpo13_(talk) 23:15, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to think that just because it can be sourced doesn't mean it belongs here. JQTriple7 ^talk 23:22, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be using this argument, which is essentially a personal preference. Why does this not belong(assuming it had sources, which it currently does not)? 331dot (talk) 23:25, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, it seems to me that it isn't even remotely notable. I agree with Clpo13's original post, it could belong in the article about the person, but this article is hardly remarkable or informative. JQTriple7 ^talk 23:32, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Since all four presidents are right-handed, it's very unlikely this would have been remarked upon in any case. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:20, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Though it's about content in general (and not notability), WP:ONUS says that just because something can be sourced doesn't mean that it should be included. However, that's an argument for another discussion. For this article topic, I don't see a way this can satisfy WP:LISTN. The results I see are about "heavy-handedness" or "even-handedness". It's possible there's some scientific study somewhere that I missed, but I'm really not thinking this is a major topic of discussion. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:05, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For this to even begin to approach WP:Notability there must be multiple sources that discuss, in significant detail, the phenomenon "handedness of presidents of South Africa". Mentions, or even in-depth discussion, of the handedness of any individual president is insufficient - the sources must discuss the handedness of "presidents of South Africa" as a collective/class. There is simply no reasonable basis for the existence of this article. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:53, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesnt not appear to be a point of discussion or notability so really not an encyclopedic subject. MilborneOne (talk) 20:44, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The definition of cruft. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:22, 8 December 2015 (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.