Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ireyomi

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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:28, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ireyomi[edit]

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

Unreferenced and non-notable per WP:GNG Drm310 (talk) 17:16, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:06, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:50, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete At the moment, I see no evidence of notability. Couldn't find any scholarly works about the name either. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:55, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Could've been speedied. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 08:39, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete makes no sense. --—Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 10:35, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:G1. Just a bunch of gibberish, as far as I can tell. WPancake (talk) 14:37, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This may well not be a suitable topic for a Wikipedia article, but anyone who says that this "makes no sense" or is "a bunch of gibberish" needs to improve their English comprehension skills. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:51, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Or perhaps it's just a poorly-written, poorly-punctuated, one-line article which you had to go and fix in order to make more comprehensible. It could be that, too. In any case, it could be speedied entirely out of WP:COMMONSENSE, being extremely short, unreferenced, and with no indication of passing WP:GNG. WPancake (talk) 14:38, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The only comprehensibility improvement that I made was to add two pairs of quotation marks - no change of wording was needed. Missing quotation marks don't turn grammatical sentences into gibberish, so please don't be so rude about other people's contributions. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:04, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pot and kettle. You walked into this discussion saying that we "need to improve our English comprehension skills", and later, in this edit reason, that we "seem unable to read English". I don't know what kind of responses you were expecting. WPancake (talk) 20:27, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My statement was based on clear evidence. Yours was not. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:39, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My statement was based on the "clear evidence" of the fact that I didn't know just what the article was trying to tell me. You could have politely informed me, but you decided to be snippy instead. WPancake (talk) 20:48, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per nom. --Dcirovic (talk) 21:47, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But the nom didn't say "speedy delete". 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:04, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Utterly needless. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 04:27, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is a subjective criterion that is not one of our criteria for speedy deletion. Please let's concentrate on whether this qualifies for plain old non-speedy deletion, rather than get into a feeding frenzy of editors calling for speedy deletion as some sort of punishment for an editor, probably not a native speaker of English, who had the temerity to create an article that doesn't meet our notability standards. Several editors in this discussion need to read, and act on, WP:BITE. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:04, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that it was created by a new user does not save the article from being worthless. There's virtually no chance the article will be kept and it's thus better off speedily deleted as a time-saving measure. WPancake (talk) 20:27, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There you go again, being rude about another editor's efforts to create an article. And we don't speedily delete articles as a time-saving measure, but on the basis of specific, limited, criteria, which don't apply here. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:39, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Then we might have to look into being a bit more flexible with the rules, or, again, using common sense. If you give me one reason why this article might be worth keeping, I may give it a chance. WPancake (talk) 20:48, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose the common sense that you are talking about is the common sense that we can have loads of article about European names but that it is inconceivable that we should have an article about an African name. It's pretty obvious what type of thought process that common sense is based on, but I don't think that spelling it out would be helpful. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:56, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ADHOM. You are not being very constructive. I'm not interested in getting into a flame war over a one-line article, but my vote for speedy deletion stands. WPancake (talk) 21:06, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as notability has not been shown and my efforts to find such notability have been unsuccessful, but certainly not "speedy delete" on the basis of the racist "common sense" that says that African names "make no sense" or are "gibberish" or are "worthless" or are otherwise incapable of being notable. There are several participants in this discussion who should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:19, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They were most obviously talking about the article, not the name... --Mr. Magoo (talk) 14:56, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But those comments were obviously untrue for the article, which was written in perfectly grammatical English but just with some quotation marks missing, so they were obviously based on the impossibility of any article about an African name being worthy of consideration for inclusion. I'm sure that if the exact same article had been written with "Dutch" or "Greek" instead of "Yoruba" (both languages with fewer native speakers than Yoruba) it wouldn't have attracted such vitriolic criticism and calls for speedy deletion. Once again, these calls were clearly based on a racist view of "common sense", and you, as a self-professed liberal, need to consider carefully why you called for speedy deletion. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:45, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Snowball Delete Will someone please get the hook? And Adoil Descended (talk) 11:13, 20 May 2016 (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.