Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of successful coups d'état

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. WP:SNOW The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:59, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of successful coups d'état

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

Delete per WP:NOTDIR

Wikipedia is not a directory KoshVorlon. Angeli i demoni krushili nado mnoj... 19:18, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This list is not a directory. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:51, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. WP:NOTDIR is irrelevant: the first two sentences of it say, "Wikipedia encompasses many lists of links to articles within Wikipedia that are used for internal organization or to describe a notable subject. In that sense, Wikipedia functions as an index or directory of its own content." This list meets WP:LSC on grounds that every entry is individually notable. Dricherby (talk) 20:56, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are stronger reasons to articulate for deletion--the above two !voters have it essentially correct--but even so, those would be primarily arguments for cleanup and sourcing, rather than removal of the list as inappropriate. Jclemens (talk) 00:07, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I fail to see how this page is actually a directory. The article needs some routine cleanp, not deletion →B music ian 01:41, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article needs improvement such as more clearly defined criteria as to what makes a coup "successful", more wikilinks, and better sourcing. But those issues can be dealt with through normal editing. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:36, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Perfectly viable topic for a list, and the nomination seems to be a case of WP:VAGUEWAVE given that no specific concerns are raised. Nick-D (talk) 07:36, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, completely meritless and substanceless VAGUEWAVE nomination, not his only one pending nor the only one in which he couldn't even be bothered to use basic punctuation. It is unacceptable for an experienced editor to so lazily spit out an AFD so as to just create work for others in responding and closing it, and he should be blocked for disruption if he does it again. postdlf (talk) 13:48, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The punctuation skills of the nominator are irrelevant and complaining about them could in itself be considered disruptive. Dricherby (talk) 14:01, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It goes to the time and effort he took to post this. He's not a newbie, and as his fanciful signature should attest, he's not without basic skills here, so I do not believe he is unable to use a period. WP:ADHOM is irrelevant because I am not addressing his conduct here as a way to defend the merits of the list, but because I find his conduct unacceptable in and of itself. postdlf (talk) 14:07, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. The time and effort taken to post this are shown by the lack of justification for deletion, beyond a link to a policy. Since they did not affect the clarity of his communication, his punctuation skills are no more relevant than his hairstyle. Dricherby (talk) 08:37, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep unless the nominator is willing to explain why he feels the article does not conform to policies/guidelines. The nomination is currently WP:JUSTALINK. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 06:11, 27 May 2012 (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.