Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wealthiest families in history: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Pop Secret (talk | contribs) |
|||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
A morass of [[WP:OR|original research]] and [[WP:SYNTH|synthesis]] from reliable and verifiable sources but suffering methodological problems, principally that of comparability across time and country. Worthy though it may be in itself, the way it's been constructed makes it improper to be a Wikipedia article, and its talk page already raises these concerns. '''[[User:Rodhullandemu|<font color="7F007F">'''Rodhullandemu'''</font>]]''' ([[User_talk:Rodhullandemu|Talk]]) 22:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC) |
A morass of [[WP:OR|original research]] and [[WP:SYNTH|synthesis]] from reliable and verifiable sources but suffering methodological problems, principally that of comparability across time and country. Worthy though it may be in itself, the way it's been constructed makes it improper to be a Wikipedia article, and its talk page already raises these concerns. '''[[User:Rodhullandemu|<font color="7F007F">'''Rodhullandemu'''</font>]]''' ([[User_talk:Rodhullandemu|Talk]]) 22:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC) |
||
*'''Keep''' This article is notable and should be kept [[User:Ijanderson977|Ijanderson977]] ([[User talk:Ijanderson977|talk]]) 22:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC) |
*'''Keep''' This article is notable and should be kept [[User:Ijanderson977|Ijanderson977]] ([[User talk:Ijanderson977|talk]]) 22:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC) |
||
*'''Delete,''' per nom. Notability is not drawn into question here; original research and methodological concerns are the issue, and those points are well-taken. [[User:Pop Secret|Pop Secret]] ([[User talk:Pop Secret|talk]]) 23:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 23:08, 1 May 2008
- Wealthiest families in history (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
A morass of original research and synthesis from reliable and verifiable sources but suffering methodological problems, principally that of comparability across time and country. Worthy though it may be in itself, the way it's been constructed makes it improper to be a Wikipedia article, and its talk page already raises these concerns. Rodhullandemu (Talk) 22:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep This article is notable and should be kept Ijanderson977 (talk) 22:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, per nom. Notability is not drawn into question here; original research and methodological concerns are the issue, and those points are well-taken. Pop Secret (talk) 23:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC)