Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unusual historical figures


 * 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 delete. Liz Read! Talk! 17:24, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Unusual historical figures

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

This list has a very subjective inclusion criterion and would thus seem impossible to accurately reference with any reliable source. Fails WP:LISTN and possibly WP:NOR by the nature of this classification. ComplexRational (talk) 16:01, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and History. ComplexRational (talk) 16:01, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete (Note that this is a mainspace version of Draft:American Oddballs by the same editor.) Article cites no reliable sources, and relies almost entirely on the "Sam O'Nella" youtube channel. The article title provides a vague scope that is subjective, as the nom points out, and non-encyclopedic. It might be appropriate for a clickbait article on a blog but not Wikipedia. Schazjmd   (talk)  16:25, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete: This list is all based off of the series of YouTube videos that are cited. I would recommend watching them, as they're really hilarious, but this article is just complete junk. Easily fails WP:NOR, and can never be an encyclopedic list due to the subjective nature of the scope. Curbon7 (talk) 16:27, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete WP:A1, no criteria and not even based on objectively unusual things (i.e. only head of state of X, unusual deaths, people with extremely rare conditions etc.) Dronebogus (talk) 16:47, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete I see no reason to assume that this wasn't created in good faith, but it is a list without any proper WP:LISTCRITERIA—which are supposed to be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources—and I don't see that as being possible to remedy. To put it another way, there's a reason WP:Unusual articles (where several of these people are listed) is not in article space. TompaDompa (talk) 18:49, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:45, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Snow delete per nom. Most (practically all?) notable people are unusual. That's a really low bar for inclusion. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:40, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete (or merge back)-- We appear to have an article on each of the 5 men, and nothing obviously links them except that an editor thought them unusual. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:55, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete; all of the content here seems to also be present (in much more encyclopedic and thoroughly-cited form) in the main articles on the figures mentioned. Even as a general subject apart from the currently existing article, it is impossible to imagine what objective inclusion criteria for this page would look like. jp×g 04:30, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete, indiscriminate list without defined inclusion criteria. Sourced mostly to a YouTube channel. J I P  &#124; Talk 08:36, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete There is no clear reason to tie these people together as a group, especially just these people and not others.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:28, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Per nom. Maybe a list of historical figures who qualify a certain notable benchmark is acceptable, but definitely not this. OP to consider the same, whilst ensuring no addition of original research as already mentioned above. Out of scope for enWP. MxYamato (talk) 07:31, 7 July 2022 (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.