Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patay Gutom Gang
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:22, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Patay Gutom Gang[edit]
Nnanity that should be speediable as A7 except that the current wording excludes groups of non-notable people. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 14:40, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Another reason for deletion policy to change. Delete. The Land 14:48, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete nn group. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 15:13, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. A whopping 15 members? I'm all for expanding A7. Tags like 'nn-group' and 'nn-band' would make great stocking stuffers. PJM 15:38, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all, including its 8 “Prominent Members” (out of 15 total!). Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 17:25, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- This has nothing to do with notability, which is not part of deletion critera. This information is unverifiable in the sense that wikipedia policy means it, and so can already be removed without the need for new policy creep. Trollderella 08:57, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point. The Land 10:43, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, some people use "notability" to mean exactly the point you made about verifiability (subjects analyzed sufficiently for there to be a body of work for Wikipedia to review and summarize), Trollderella, but I agree that expanding A7 wouldn't be a good idea, for different reasons. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 10:58, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- This has nothing to do with notability, which is not part of deletion critera. This information is unverifiable in the sense that wikipedia policy means it, and so can already be removed without the need for new policy creep. Trollderella 08:57, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as typical vanity. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 10:58, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per all statements above. --howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 07:29, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nominator. — JIP | Talk 17:14, 16 November 2005 (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.