 | This page is currently under extended confirmed protection. Extended confirmed protection prevents edits from all unregistered editors and registered users with fewer than 30 days tenure and 500 edits. The policy on community use specifies that extended confirmed protection can be applied to combat disruption, if semi-protection has proven to be ineffective. Extended confirmed protection may also be applied to enforce arbitration sanctions. Please discuss any changes on the talk page; you may submit an edit request to ask for uncontroversial changes supported by consensus. |
- 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.
Numerically, we have no consensus, with about 40% of opinions in favor of deleting and 60% in favor of keeping the article.
In terms of strength of argument, many "keep" opinions invoke the WP:N guideline. These opinions must be discounted, because lack of notability of the topic is not the reason for which deletion is sought. Instead, the nomination argues that the contents of the article constitute original research by synthesis, i.e., "combin[ing] material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source" (WP:SYNTH). In assessing the strength of arguments made here, we must examine whether this argument is made or rebutted convincingly. I find that neither is the case here.
To make a cogent SYNTH case, the "delete" side would have needed to address the specific sources cited in the article, and they would have needed to show how exactly these sources say one thing and the article text says another, and then they would have needed to show that these defects cannot be remedied except by deletion of the article (WP:ATD). But the "delete" side has failed to make their case in this way. They merely allege, but do not demonstrate, inadmissible synthesis.
The "keep" side does not really do better: with the exception of Homerethegreat and a very few others, nobody really addresses the specific sources cited in the article, and how well they correspond to the article text (as would have been needed to rebut a WP:SYNTH deletion rationale). Instead, they make sweeping allegations mostly about how notable the topic is, which, as explained above, is beside the point here.
Consequently, there is no informed consensus to delete the article. A merger discussion or a more convincing renomination for deletion remain possible. Sandstein 13:44, 23 December 2023 (UTC)