| Revision as of 05:41, 5 December 2010 editJohn J. Bulten (talk | contribs)12,763 edits AFD | Revision as of 07:11, 5 December 2010 edit undoJclemens-public (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers4,932 editsm Listing on WP:DELSORT under PeopleNext edit → | ||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
| Continuing nominations of nonnotable supercentenarians with no more than one reliable source per ]. I intend that, during discussion, any article supporters either ''find sources'' or ''merge sourced material'' to deal with the indisputable ] failure (the requirement of multiple reliable sources); without either of these actions, bare "keep" votes will not address that failure. I also intend that any who disagree with the WT:WOP proposal, which affirms GNG for deletion of these articles, should comment at that link. Article-specific details with my !vote below. ] 05:41, 5 December 2010 (UTC) | Continuing nominations of nonnotable supercentenarians with no more than one reliable source per ]. I intend that, during discussion, any article supporters either ''find sources'' or ''merge sourced material'' to deal with the indisputable ] failure (the requirement of multiple reliable sources); without either of these actions, bare "keep" votes will not address that failure. I also intend that any who disagree with the WT:WOP proposal, which affirms GNG for deletion of these articles, should comment at that link. Article-specific details with my !vote below. ] 05:41, 5 December 2010 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Delete as nom''' 5-sentence article completely about unverifiable longevity OR/SYN. Only source is one 20-sentence BBC article that does not support most of the material in the WP article (unsourced research presumably by GRG members) and is insufficient to demonstrate notability. Citation lack already tagged in article since 11/2007. ] 05:41, 5 December 2010 (UTC) | *'''Delete as nom''' 5-sentence article completely about unverifiable longevity OR/SYN. Only source is one 20-sentence BBC article that does not support most of the material in the WP article (unsourced research presumably by GRG members) and is insufficient to demonstrate notability. Citation lack already tagged in article since 11/2007. ] 05:41, 5 December 2010 (UTC) | ||
| *<small class="delsort-notice">'''Note''': This debate has been included in the ]. <!--Template:Deletion sorting--></small> <small>-- ] (]) 07:11, 5 December 2010 (UTC)</small> | |||
Revision as of 07:11, 5 December 2010
Yukichi Chuganji
- Yukichi Chuganji (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Continuing nominations of nonnotable supercentenarians with no more than one reliable source per WT:WOP#Common deletion outcomes. I intend that, during discussion, any article supporters either find sources or merge sourced material to deal with the indisputable WP:GNG failure (the requirement of multiple reliable sources); without either of these actions, bare "keep" votes will not address that failure. I also intend that any who disagree with the WT:WOP proposal, which affirms GNG for deletion of these articles, should comment at that link. Article-specific details with my !vote below. JJB 05:41, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
- Delete as nom 5-sentence article completely about unverifiable longevity OR/SYN. Only source is one 20-sentence BBC article that does not support most of the material in the WP article (unsourced research presumably by GRG members) and is insufficient to demonstrate notability. Citation lack already tagged in article since 11/2007. JJB 05:41, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 07:11, 5 December 2010 (UTC)