Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qu'aiti

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 per WP:SNOW. The nominator has not provided a reason for deletion. A dispute about a section in the article should be discussed on the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:43, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Qu'aiti[edit]

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

The list of "Current Royal Family" is a big fat lie, they are not alone among the royal family, there are other members of the royal family but the person who made the article wants to mention only his people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vikasbhalla (talk • contribs)

Keep, this plainly was an actual autonomous realm, and semi-independent states are definitely worthy of articles. If part of the article is a big fat lie, please discuss its removal at the talk page. Nyttend (talk) 23:21, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Nyttend. If the nominator has issues with content, then I advise discussing it, but not petty acts like section blanking and nominating for deletion. Green Giant (talk) 23:48, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No reason given to delete the page itself. The problem isn't the article, but a section within the article. There are other ways to deal with something that may be a "big fat lie" (or, more neutrally, an inaccuracy) besides deleting the article. One could edit it out; one could put a disclaimer on there to clarify that there is no reigning royal family or claimant to a throne; one could announce one's intentions on a talk page and then carry out the fix-- everyone is entitled to edit a page. Mandsford 14:47, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - article content issues about what to include or not include do not mean that this is not-notable. A quick Google Scholar search showed a number of mentions of this as a state. Likewise Google books. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:23, 15 August 2010 (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.