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.
to much vandalism to this page, to many non-notable, unsourced people listed — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Up&Down (
talk •
contribs)
Weak Keep At present it looks fairly well-sourced to me and none of the names are red-linked. Although I'm not entirely sure it's a notable topic so I'm saying weak keep.--
T. Anthony09:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)reply
C'mon, the article should just be at "List of members of Mensa" - but then someone would argue "since it's not complete, delete it" or some other specious argument. Improperly named article is not a criterion for deletion, but for moving.
WilyD15:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)reply
Weak Keep as this is sourced and has a solid enough inclusion criteria that it is not
Original research. Article name and body could use some work (as Zer0faults pointed out "famous" is totally objective and should be dropped from the name), but that is editorial, not a reason to delete.--
Isotope2315:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)reply
Weak keep Vandalism isn't a reason for deletion, or something more notable still like
George W. Bush would be gone. Along the same lines, if
George W. Bush were unsourced, you wouldn't say to delete it, you'd say add sources. Wikipedia needs to step it up regarding this article. That said, zerofaults brings up a good point: there should be a clearer set of guidelines for inclusion established.
Jacqui★16:34, 15 August 2006 (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.
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.
to much vandalism to this page, to many non-notable, unsourced people listed — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Up&Down (
talk •
contribs)
Weak Keep At present it looks fairly well-sourced to me and none of the names are red-linked. Although I'm not entirely sure it's a notable topic so I'm saying weak keep.--
T. Anthony09:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)reply
C'mon, the article should just be at "List of members of Mensa" - but then someone would argue "since it's not complete, delete it" or some other specious argument. Improperly named article is not a criterion for deletion, but for moving.
WilyD15:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)reply
Weak Keep as this is sourced and has a solid enough inclusion criteria that it is not
Original research. Article name and body could use some work (as Zer0faults pointed out "famous" is totally objective and should be dropped from the name), but that is editorial, not a reason to delete.--
Isotope2315:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)reply
Weak keep Vandalism isn't a reason for deletion, or something more notable still like
George W. Bush would be gone. Along the same lines, if
George W. Bush were unsourced, you wouldn't say to delete it, you'd say add sources. Wikipedia needs to step it up regarding this article. That said, zerofaults brings up a good point: there should be a clearer set of guidelines for inclusion established.
Jacqui★16:34, 15 August 2006 (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.