Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Sultans of Sulu


 * 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.  Majorly  ( Talk ) 21:55, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

List of Sultans of Sulu

 * — (View AfD)

This is a tough one. While I in principle think a "list of the sultans of Sulu" can be a good subject for an article, this isn't it. SInce its creation in september 2005 (i.e. more than a year ago), it has been tagged for cleanup, and for months it has been tagged for NPOV and lack of sources as well. The article is a mess, and is one big POV list. It seems unsalvageable to me, and none of the editors (over a 100 edits so far) has done a serious try to improve the article (wrt Wikipedia standards and policies). As it stands and has stood for over a year, it is POV, WP:OR, and heavily lacks WP:V sources, and I think it would be better to just erase it completely, and if needed start again from scratch, with a sourced, neutral article (neutral meaning: if there are disputes, show both sides, with their sources, and without taking a stance). Fram 08:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - That is one ugly (and POV) page. Nothing can be salvaged from that. --Wooty Woot? contribs 08:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - Although I am quite tempted to salt the earth of this as well, it is likely that since it is a legitimate topic the article that arises from its ashes will be very similar (i.e. lots of all-caps and pov-ness). Honestly, though, what we have is so bad that just deleting it might help. savidan(talk) (e@) 10:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - How about just deleting unverifiable material and starting (basically) from scratch? JulesH 11:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - OK, I've just read it. That's the entire article. JulesH 11:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. The arguments given for deletion are actually arguments for cleanup (which is badly needed).  This article could be useful if it is reformatted and given sources. --Zerotalk 11:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per User_talk:Zero0000RaveenS 23:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment -- I worked on this today some, while I was at work, and I think if you someone goes through and deletes with extreme prejudice everything they can't find a source for -- which will be a lot -- it will make it at least an acceptable article, if a short one. Good luck. Deltopia 00:27, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Keep per Zero cleanup and deletion 2 different things.--Xiahou 00:42, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - I know nothing of the subject, but there is a lot of material here that is not in the Sultanate of Sulu article. It certainly does not conform to WP style, but thant can be amended.  I suspect the problem is that we lack users from that part of the world who could mend it.  Peterkingiron 17:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't mind keeping it, but I do feel that in this case, since there isn't nothing really salvageable in the history, it may be better to just get rid of all the heavily POV history (never mind the terrible layout, just look at the contents) and start from scratch. I think cleanup has had more than its chance (over a year!), so saying that we should keep this because it needs to be cleaned is basically saying that any article, no matter how bad, can be kept indefinitely. I wonder where the benefit is in that, and if we in those cases aren't better of without an article than with a bad one. But anyway, I would be happy if the result of this AfD was a much improved article, then it hasn't been for naught. Fram 20:09, 17 December 2006 (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.