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. Consensus is to Keep this article but I really hope the editors advocating Keep can work on improving it with more inline citations. LizRead!Talk! 07:47, 6 April 2024 (UTC)reply
most of the article is an
indiscriminate list of historical occurrences where elephants might have been involved.
ltbdl (
talk) 08:38, 27 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Looks like a potentially valid topic. Deletion is not cleanup. Is there a reason this page must go?
Srnec (
talk) 00:43, 1 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep. I can't see an issue. It's a valid article about recorded instances of exotic animals turning up in an area to which they're not native in pre-modern times. As long as it's sourced that's fine. --
Necrothesp (
talk) 12:23, 2 April 2024 (UTC)reply
it's not sourced. did you read the article?
ltbdl (
talk) 02:00, 3 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Have you looked at the sources in the subsection helpfully named "Sources"?
Cortador (
talk) 07:56, 4 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep per above. Article is decently sourced, so I don't get why the nom is claiming that it isn't. Seems fine to keep as is in my opinion.
CycloneYoristalk! 09:30, 3 April 2024 (UTC)reply
have i gone mad? are we reading the same article?
ltbdl (
talk) 09:33, 3 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
The Herald (Benison) (
talk) 01:55, 4 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep per Necrothesp. Inline citations would be a big improvement but there’s no doubt the topic is covered in RIS.
Mccapra (
talk) 05:47, 4 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep. The article needs work and especially in-line citations, but as usual, AfD isn't cleanup, and the topic itself is notable.
Cortador (
talk) 07:58, 4 April 2024 (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.
The result was keep. Consensus is to Keep this article but I really hope the editors advocating Keep can work on improving it with more inline citations. LizRead!Talk! 07:47, 6 April 2024 (UTC)reply
most of the article is an
indiscriminate list of historical occurrences where elephants might have been involved.
ltbdl (
talk) 08:38, 27 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Looks like a potentially valid topic. Deletion is not cleanup. Is there a reason this page must go?
Srnec (
talk) 00:43, 1 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep. I can't see an issue. It's a valid article about recorded instances of exotic animals turning up in an area to which they're not native in pre-modern times. As long as it's sourced that's fine. --
Necrothesp (
talk) 12:23, 2 April 2024 (UTC)reply
it's not sourced. did you read the article?
ltbdl (
talk) 02:00, 3 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Have you looked at the sources in the subsection helpfully named "Sources"?
Cortador (
talk) 07:56, 4 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep per above. Article is decently sourced, so I don't get why the nom is claiming that it isn't. Seems fine to keep as is in my opinion.
CycloneYoristalk! 09:30, 3 April 2024 (UTC)reply
have i gone mad? are we reading the same article?
ltbdl (
talk) 09:33, 3 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
The Herald (Benison) (
talk) 01:55, 4 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep per Necrothesp. Inline citations would be a big improvement but there’s no doubt the topic is covered in RIS.
Mccapra (
talk) 05:47, 4 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep. The article needs work and especially in-line citations, but as usual, AfD isn't cleanup, and the topic itself is notable.
Cortador (
talk) 07:58, 4 April 2024 (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.