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.
This list has a very subjective inclusion criterion and would thus seem impossible to accurately reference with any reliable source. Fails
WP:LISTN and possibly
WP:NOR by the nature of this classification.
ComplexRational (
talk)
16:01, 2 July 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete (Note that this is a mainspace version of
Draft:American Oddballs by the same editor.) Article cites no reliable sources, and relies almost entirely on the "Sam O'Nella" youtube channel. The article title provides a vague scope that is subjective, as the nom points out, and non-encyclopedic. It might be appropriate for a clickbait article on a blog but not Wikipedia.
Schazjmd(talk)16:25, 2 July 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete: This list is all based off of the series of YouTube videos that are cited. I would recommend watching them, as they're really hilarious, but this article is just complete junk. Easily fails
WP:NOR, and can never be an encyclopedic list due to the subjective nature of the scope.
Curbon7 (
talk)
16:27, 2 July 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete I see no reason to assume that this wasn't created in good faith, but it is a list without any proper
WP:LISTCRITERIA—which are supposed to be unambiguous, objective, and supported by
reliable sources—and I don't see that as being possible to remedy. To put it another way, there's a reason
WP:Unusual articles (where several of these people are listed) is not in article space.
TompaDompa (
talk)
18:49, 2 July 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete (or merge back)-- We appear to have an article on each of the 5 men, and nothing obviously links them except that an editor thought them unusual.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
18:55, 3 July 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete; all of the content here seems to also be present (in much more encyclopedic and thoroughly-cited form) in the main articles on the figures mentioned. Even as a general subject apart from the currently existing article, it is impossible to imagine what objective inclusion criteria for this page would look like. jp×g04:30, 4 July 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete Per nom. Maybe a list of historical figures who qualify a certain notable benchmark is acceptable, but definitely not this. OP to consider the same, whilst ensuring no addition of original research as already mentioned above. Out of scope for enWP.
MxYamato (
talk)
07:31, 7 July 2022 (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.
This list has a very subjective inclusion criterion and would thus seem impossible to accurately reference with any reliable source. Fails
WP:LISTN and possibly
WP:NOR by the nature of this classification.
ComplexRational (
talk)
16:01, 2 July 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete (Note that this is a mainspace version of
Draft:American Oddballs by the same editor.) Article cites no reliable sources, and relies almost entirely on the "Sam O'Nella" youtube channel. The article title provides a vague scope that is subjective, as the nom points out, and non-encyclopedic. It might be appropriate for a clickbait article on a blog but not Wikipedia.
Schazjmd(talk)16:25, 2 July 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete: This list is all based off of the series of YouTube videos that are cited. I would recommend watching them, as they're really hilarious, but this article is just complete junk. Easily fails
WP:NOR, and can never be an encyclopedic list due to the subjective nature of the scope.
Curbon7 (
talk)
16:27, 2 July 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete I see no reason to assume that this wasn't created in good faith, but it is a list without any proper
WP:LISTCRITERIA—which are supposed to be unambiguous, objective, and supported by
reliable sources—and I don't see that as being possible to remedy. To put it another way, there's a reason
WP:Unusual articles (where several of these people are listed) is not in article space.
TompaDompa (
talk)
18:49, 2 July 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete (or merge back)-- We appear to have an article on each of the 5 men, and nothing obviously links them except that an editor thought them unusual.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
18:55, 3 July 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete; all of the content here seems to also be present (in much more encyclopedic and thoroughly-cited form) in the main articles on the figures mentioned. Even as a general subject apart from the currently existing article, it is impossible to imagine what objective inclusion criteria for this page would look like. jp×g04:30, 4 July 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete Per nom. Maybe a list of historical figures who qualify a certain notable benchmark is acceptable, but definitely not this. OP to consider the same, whilst ensuring no addition of original research as already mentioned above. Out of scope for enWP.
MxYamato (
talk)
07:31, 7 July 2022 (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.