Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pani

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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 00:25, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pani

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article has been unsourced since 2006. Notability of topic is in question. Coin945 (talk) 05:27, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coin945 (talk) 05:27, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, the nominator does not propose a valid WP:DEL-REASON. The nominator does not say which notability guideline this article fails to meet. SailingInABathTub (talk) 10:31, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a bunch of unsourced rubbish. We do not keep articles without sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:04, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia:Deletion policy is that we do not keep articles for which sources cannot be found. Please familiarize yourself with policy. You're getting several of them wrong. Uncle G (talk) 19:21, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, you are wrong. This article violates verrifiaility. Verrifiability policy says that sources must exist for all articles. We have had this discussion before. Articles need to have sources to be verrified. There are other contradicting things that say other things, but verrifiability says that articles must be sourced to exist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:13, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Wikipedia:Verifiability is a content policy. Wikipedia:deletion policy is the deletion policy. As I said, you are getting this wrong. Uncle G (talk) 01:21, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - Per WP:NEXIST, topic notability is not based upon the state of sourcing in articles themselves. Per the guideline, "The absence of sources or citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that a subject is not notable." Furthermore, Wikipedia:Verifiability is a content policy, whereas Wikipedia:deletion policy is Wikipedia's deletion policy. The rationale above to base notability upon whether or not articles are sourced, and therefore verified, is a conflation that is not congruent with Wikipedia's deletion policy whatsoever. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:26, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, sources added. SailingInABathTub (talk) 14:07, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; the article is now adequately sourced, which makes the above debate (and the nomination itself) more or less irrelevant since that was the only complaint. jp×g 22:23, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. The article now includes a bog-standard list of notable and bluelinked people with a surname, not needing sources, so we don't need to argue about notability (we always keep such lists), and the remaining part of the article looks adequately sourced to me. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:43, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Name lists allowed per MOS:DABNAME and meets WP:APOS. Cleanup of unsourced text is outside of scope of AfD.—Bagumba (talk) 09:50, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.