Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crevier


 * 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   speedy keep. Speedy-ish, anyway. Deletion rationale not a valid reason for deletion of an article of this type. (non-admin closure) &#124;  Uncle Milty  &#124;  talk  &#124;  15:29, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Crevier

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Listcruft of anyone they claim notable with the name Crevier, and any company using the name. Caffeyw (talk) 09:03, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:23, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:23, 29 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't see a deletion rationale here. postdlf (talk) 15:11, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. Why in the world would we delete a perfectly sound surname page?Hoops gza (talk) 15:43, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - This is a perfectly good disambiguation page, though it is focused toward the people listed. Some of the articles linked might be questionable, but that should be discussed for each individually. Unless this list somehow whittles down to about two items, there is no reason for deletion. Chris857 (talk) 16:37, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * PS. There is also a Fort Crevier (fr:Fort Crevier), a National Historic Site of Canada in Quebec. Chris857 (talk) 16:41, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment I made the English article for Fort Crevier, further improving the need for the disambiguation page.Hoops gza (talk) 21:34, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I could see this becoming a disambig page. My concern is the way it's written could make it look like Wiki is making a subjective opinion in saying that some people with the name are notable and others aren't (having nothing to do with if they're meet GNG for their own article).  Caffeyw (talk) 05:21, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * That makes it sound like you think it's finished. If there were missing notable names, why wouldn't you just add them? I'm still at a loss as to why you listed this for deletion. postdlf (talk) 12:58, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep What a weird reason to delete a page. It's not a list, it's basically a disambiguation page.  Taylor Trescott  - my talk + my edits 22:29, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I nominated because as it reads right now it's not a list of people with the last name who have Wiki pages. It clearly states Notable People with the last name.  In this form it's nothing but OR/Opinion. GNG is a subjective measure to get an article, it in no way means the person actually is notable as notability is a personal opinion.  In it's current form someone could view it as potentially libelous for not being included on the list, since it implies that by not being on the list they're not notable.  I nominated before understanding how it could be changed into a disambiguation page resolving the libel concern. Caffeyw (talk) 23:40, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note that it reads "Notable people with the surname include," not "The only notable people with the surname are:" And since these people are notable, and they're currently the only people with articles who are surnamed "Crevier," it makes perfect sense. For instance, see Cortright. It's just people with the surname. It's not opinion at all.  Taylor Trescott  - my talk + my edits 23:55, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Being notable is still a pure opinion, Wiki can only have facts, just because someone is notable enough for a page on Wiki does not mean they're notable to the world. Notability for a Wiki page is purely opinion based not fact.  The way it reads now is that the following are notable people, thus those not on the list are not notable.  As stated above a disambig page would solve the issue, and make it clear we're not labeling who is/isn't notable.  Caffeyw (talk) 04:00, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * These are currently the only people on Wikipedia with the name Crevier. If there are missing people who are notable, add them.  Taylor Trescott  - my talk + my edits 12:09, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Crevier, you are so far from a deletion rationale that is in any way based on policy, guidelines, or even common sense, that you're not even wrong. If it is a problem to include the word "notable", then we would just remove it, not delete the whole damn page. See WP:ATD and WP:NOTCLEANUP. "Notable" means nothing more here than "merits an article" per WP:N, which is a judgment we have to make as editors. That's how this site works. It is standard to limit lists to subjects that merit articles, per WP:LISTPURP. If there are additional names that have or should merit articles, ADD THEM. So please WP:DROPTHESTICK and stop repeating yourself, because you have no idea what you're talking about, and are truly coming up with some of the most bizarre "arguments" I've seen here. Spend more time reading and trying to understand policy and less time trying to tell people how you think it is. postdlf (talk) 14:52, 31 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep per invalid deletion rationale. Like the thousands of other such we have on Wikipedia, it's a suitable disambig page that leads readers to other articles. "Notability" of THOSE articles is a matter not under consideration.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 10:47, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep Appears to be hoax nomination. -AfadsBad (talk) 02:46, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

.
 * 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.