Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monarchy of Fiji

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. The consensus is to keep with the necessary clean-up as a subsequent editorial action. Just Chilling (talk) 17:47, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Monarchy of Fiji

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This article was fairly ridiculous to begin with, but recently it's become an absurd mish-mash about bird poop ("scattering and landing of dirt by a rooster or chicken") and the British royal family being descended from Fijians ("According to local folklore"). Time to consign it to oblivion. DrKay (talk) 18:37, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. DrKay (talk) 18:37, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. DrKay (talk) 18:37, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but remove all the garbage Saqiwa has added over the last month to the Indigenous Monarchy section. Without that, there's some useful and historical information that should be kept. We've got RS for the info that was there before Saqiwa started working on the article. --Kbabej (talk) 19:53, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the topic is definitely notable but the article is full of unsourced material. It needs quite a lot of work. Not sure I can face it..... Mccapra (talk) 21:03, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mccapra: Couldn't we just remove Saqiwa's contributions and pare it down to where it was? --Kbabej (talk) 21:04, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I was thinking of searching for sources to support what they have added, which would be quite a lengthy task I imagine. Your suggestion would be much simpler. Mccapra (talk) 03:26, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a valid topic, but remove all edits from Saqiwa.-gadfium 01:38, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but move all of Saqiwa's stuff to BJAODN if felt desired. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 02:20, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Kbabej (talk). --SalmanZ (talk) 21:55, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Perfectly valid topic, albeit in need of a clean-up. Atchom (talk) 00:26, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Topic is notable, but do follow the suggestions above. William2001^(talk) 05:04, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the Article, its subject is well sourced subject.Forest90 (talk) 17:55, 5 July 2019 (UTC) - comment made after close but moved here for completeness. Just Chilling (talk) 20:59, 5 July 2019 (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.