351:
I took the author's comment to mean that there would eventually be
Knowledge biographical articles written about the entries, not that there will one day be biographies about these subjects written, printed, and sold in bookstores. If you took him to mean the latter (which I guess is possible, though
434:
What holds up or not at AFD is irrelevant to whether a PROD can be removed. I think it's relevant to note that PROD was attempted at a subsequent AFD because many editors would like AFD to be used as a last resort, but beyond that it just seems like you're trying to put words in the mouth of someone
403:
There are no invalid grounds for contesting a prod, nor is there even a requirement to give grounds. All of this distraction is a shame because I think there are good reasons for deletion here, but the signal to noise ratio is off because of all the policy/guideline misinterpretation.
497:
not a notable position, so a list of people holding it is not appropriate for an article. In any case, there;'s no reason to argue over removing a prod--prod is just a shortcut to AfD for those cases where there is no objection. When there is, that's when we come here.
312:
exist (because lists of redlinks exist in part to aid in identifying missing article topics) and whether the organizing concept of the list is a fact that it is encyclopedic to index. Steve Dufour is thus the only commenter so far to present a relevant, valid argument.
165:
382:
could be invoked to say that any notability an individual may have does not confer any notability to an award or honor that individual might have won. We won't start an article about some little-league highest-scorer trophy just because
435:
who isn't even participating here and to no effect because the content is what it is and why a PROD was removed doesn't matter. Which meaning of "biography" did you intend, btw, in regard to your CRYSTAL rationale?
259:
Even if the people were notable, they would not be notable for being honorary aldermen. Entire thing is trivial. Just about any government on any level awards honors. Nothing special about this one.
91:
86:
159:
95:
304:
has absolutely nothing to do with predicting the future content of
Knowledge; where did you get that strange idea? Nor do we condition the existence of lists on whether articles for the entries
78:
240:
Thinking at night is really hard, trust me, Postdlf. Yes, almost every organization/geographic location has awards, and most of them are not notable. I change my stance, delete. Period.
277:
118:
125:
180:
147:
509:
489:
448:
429:
417:
398:
373:
346:
326:
289:
268:
249:
233:
215:
60:
472:
as apparently none of the entries are notable so this can't be justified as a navigational index, nor is the award notable so this also fails
141:
137:
82:
187:
74:
66:
17:
352:
I think not the most likely interpretation), that's essentially the claim that some day these honorary alderman will satisfy
153:
528:
360:. CRYSTAL still wouldn't apply because we're not talking about speculative assertions within the article itself.
40:
379:
264:
208:
without prejudice against recreation a generation from now when said biographies are actually published.
524:
36:
245:
229:
173:
469:
484:
443:
412:
368:
357:
332:
321:
301:
285:
260:
197:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
523:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
473:
241:
225:
505:
384:
353:
478:
437:
406:
362:
315:
281:
54:
422:..."invalid" as in "not gonna hold up at AfD." Do we understand each other now? --
112:
500:
378:
Either way, the prod was contested on invalid grounds: the principle of
196:
Contested prod. The grounds for removing the prod tag have to do with
204:
there will be biographies about the people receiving this honor.
517:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
224:
Agree with OP. Delete until there are bios about these people.
388:
108:
104:
100:
172:
278:
list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
531:). No further edits should be made to this page.
308:exist; what is relevant is whether the articles
186:
8:
276:Note: This debate has been included in the
356:even though they don't now, so see instead
275:
75:List of Honorary Aldermen of Wolverhampton
67:List of Honorary Aldermen of Wolverhampton
331:Actually, I'm not saying anything about
335:having to do with the future content
7:
200:, that is, the author thinks that
24:
339:. Where did you get that idea? --
387:won it once before joining the
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
61:00:19, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
510:18:24, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
490:19:07, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
449:19:07, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
430:18:51, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
418:20:42, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
399:20:23, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
374:20:04, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
347:19:57, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
327:19:49, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
290:19:25, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
269:05:36, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
250:19:54, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
234:03:54, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
216:02:36, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
548:
520:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
468:but not per nom; fails
389:National Hockey League
48:The result was
292:
539:
522:
427:
396:
344:
213:
191:
190:
176:
128:
116:
98:
57:
34:
547:
546:
542:
541:
540:
538:
537:
536:
535:
529:deletion review
518:
423:
392:
380:WP:NOTINHERITED
340:
209:
133:
124:
89:
73:
70:
55:
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
545:
543:
534:
533:
513:
512:
492:
463:
462:
461:
460:
459:
458:
457:
456:
455:
454:
453:
452:
451:
294:
293:
272:
271:
253:
252:
237:
236:
194:
193:
130:
69:
64:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
544:
532:
530:
526:
521:
515:
514:
511:
507:
503:
502:
496:
493:
491:
487:
486:
481:
480:
475:
471:
467:
464:
450:
446:
445:
440:
439:
433:
432:
431:
426:
421:
420:
419:
415:
414:
409:
408:
402:
401:
400:
395:
390:
386:
385:Wayne Gretzky
381:
377:
376:
375:
371:
370:
365:
364:
359:
355:
350:
349:
348:
343:
338:
334:
330:
329:
328:
324:
323:
318:
317:
311:
307:
303:
299:
296:
295:
291:
287:
283:
279:
274:
273:
270:
266:
262:
258:
255:
254:
251:
247:
243:
239:
238:
235:
231:
227:
223:
220:
219:
218:
217:
212:
207:
203:
199:
189:
185:
182:
179:
175:
171:
167:
164:
161:
158:
155:
152:
149:
146:
143:
139:
136:
135:Find sources:
131:
127:
123:
120:
114:
110:
106:
102:
97:
93:
88:
84:
80:
76:
72:
71:
68:
65:
63:
62:
59:
58:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
519:
516:
499:
494:
483:
477:
465:
442:
436:
424:
411:
405:
393:
367:
361:
341:
337:of Knowledge
336:
320:
314:
309:
305:
297:
261:Steve Dufour
256:
221:
210:
205:
201:
195:
183:
177:
169:
162:
156:
150:
144:
134:
121:
53:
49:
47:
31:
28:
470:WP:LISTPURP
160:free images
425:Blanchardb
394:Blanchardb
358:WP:TOOSOON
342:Blanchardb
333:WP:CRYSTAL
302:WP:CRYSTAL
211:Blanchardb
198:WP:CRYSTAL
525:talk page
428:-- timed
397:-- timed
345:-- timed
306:currently
282:• Gene93k
242:Buggie111
226:Buggie111
214:-- timed
37:talk page
527:or in a
474:WP:LISTN
119:View log
39:or in a
479:postdlf
438:postdlf
407:postdlf
363:postdlf
316:postdlf
298:Comment
202:someday
166:WP refs
154:scholar
92:protect
87:history
56:MBisanz
495:Delete
466:Delete
354:WP:GNG
310:should
257:Delete
222:Delete
206:Delete
138:Google
96:delete
50:delete
506:talk
181:JSTOR
142:books
126:Stats
113:views
105:watch
101:links
16:<
485:talk
444:talk
413:talk
391:. --
369:talk
322:talk
286:talk
265:talk
246:talk
230:talk
174:FENS
148:news
109:logs
83:talk
79:edit
501:DGG
188:TWL
117:– (
508:)
488:)
476:.
447:)
416:)
372:)
325:)
300:.
288:)
280:.
267:)
248:)
232:)
168:)
111:|
107:|
103:|
99:|
94:|
90:|
85:|
81:|
52:.
504:(
482:(
441:(
410:(
366:(
319:(
284:(
263:(
244:(
228:(
192:)
184:·
178:·
170:·
163:·
157:·
151:·
145:·
140:(
132:(
129:)
122:·
115:)
77:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.