Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yajaw Teʼ Kʼinich I


 * 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. Withdrawn by the nominator and all other viewpoints expressed are for Keep. (non-admin closure) - The9Man  ( Talk ) 18:28, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Yajaw Teʼ Kʼinich I

 * – ( View AfD View log )

It has one reference to a 2004 book and I found no other references beyond Wikipedia reprints. I don't see historical notability with only one source. SL93 (talk) 23:53, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:09, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belize-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:09, 16 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep: Pretty sure king = WP:NPOL pass. Curbon7 (talk) 16:37, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * That appears to be a wrong reading. A Mayan king does not count as an elected official. The closest thing we have is the failed proposed guideline Notability (royalty). SL93 (talk) 17:36, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It actually is WP:NPOL, as you should note that it doesn't distinct elected office in crit#1. As this king held a national office (as a national leader), it thus passes NPOL. The concept is that, like other WP:NPOL passers, a ruling monarch is inherently encyclopedic and necessary for a completed encyclopedia. (Side note: but it seems like Notability (royalty) was meant for royal family members and nobles than for monarchs). Curbon7 (talk) 17:49, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * What the hell? are you kidding me? the ruler or king of a kingdom is automatically notable for all time. If you don't believed me you can ask everyone. VocalIndia (talk) 17:52, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually, what the hell is wrong with you? There was no reason to be uncivil. I came back to withdraw the nomination only to see this shit. SL93 (talk) 17:59, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * "shit" is very rude to me. Pls be careful your tone. Thanks VocalIndia (talk) 18:05, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * You didn't. Shit, shit, shit. SL93 (talk) 18:06, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Hey WP:STAYCOOL, he's just trolling. Curbon7 (talk) 18:07, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * No! It is not a trolling. This is my opinion for all monarchy AfD . You can check my comments on every royalty AfDs. VocalIndia (talk) 18:22, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I gave this comment because I've noted the king and queen are automatically notable on Wikipedia. I saved many royalty articles from over 100 AfDs. For example case Articles for deletion/Queen Seonjeong. Sorry for my sensitive. Btw I'm not a royal fan. Thanks VocalIndia (talk) 18:26, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * There are no special notability guidelines about monarchs, nobility and their descendants. The guidelines for politicians are applied to those who have exercised political authority. per WP:MONARCH . VocalIndia (talk) 17:57, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 16:38, 16 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Withdraw. SL93 (talk) 18:08, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep King or ruler is automatically passes WP:NPOL. VocalIndia (talk) 18:20, 16 October 2021 (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.