Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/King of the Gypsies


 * 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:54, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

King of the Gypsies

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Just a gathering of random people who share a common, generic term. No info about the use of the term proper, just a list. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 22:39, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 03:18, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 03:18, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 03:18, 9 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep It's a title applied to various people in reliable sources and there are many sources that discuss the concept of King of the Gypsies in Gypsy culture. Just because it doesn't have a formal definition or authority or regalia isn't reason for deletion. Nominator seems to be calling for improvement ("info about the use of the term proper") rather than deletion, and "just a list" is not reason for deletion. If the page was deleted, then it would have to be replaced by a disambiguation page linking to everybody on WP who has been called King of the Gypsies - I don't think that's a superior outcome. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:59, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep As it is well sourced and of cultural importance. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 15:34, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Since this is a widely attested term. However calling it "well sourced" is rubbish. On the other hand, scholarly writing on Romani people in the United States especially is very sub-standard, so the fact that the US sections is downright atrocious is not surprising.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:31, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep The article is well sourced and passes WP:GNG.  Lacypaperclip (talk) 04:41, 14 January 2018 (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.