Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philippine Fathers

: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 delete. consensus clear that it's a truly arbitrary list DGG (talk) 03:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

=[[Philippine Fathers]]=

:{{la|Philippine Fathers}} ([{{fullurl:Philippine Fathers|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philippine Fathers}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

List organization and Original Research in question. Cited reliable sources only support claims that the individuals in this article are indeed called father of something. The lumping together of Philippine fathers on the other hand is only supported by a blog source. The monikers of being the father of something should be added (and cited) in the person's own wiki article if they're notable. This article is like lumping the Father of Bebop and the Father of the Internet in a list called "American Fathers" because they happened to be called fathers and they're both Americans. Lenticel ^(talk) 02:18, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Delete. This is an extremely arbitrary list with trivial, not encyclopedic value. The title "Father of " is given out too liberally in many fields to be of use. --seav (talk) 03:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Delete concur with above. JJL (talk) 03:47, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

:Delete per nominator. Afkatk (talk) 04:39, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Delete as original research sourced only to a blog; it's sufficient to mention the titles in the respective biographies, if relevant. - Biruitorul ^Talk 05:33, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Not an encyclopedic topic. Tim Ross (talk) 13:53, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —Bluemask (talk) 06:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your suggestion{{#if:| regarding :{{{1}}}}}. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the {{lcfirst:{{int:edit}}}} link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). Timlight (talk) 19:26, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
How does that get us any closer to satisfying WP:V, WP:RS, WP:N, WP:NEO, etc? - Biruitorul ^Talk 20:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
It suggests that Timlight does not know about User:Timlight/sandbox where perhaps this should have gone. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Userfy to User:Timlight/sandbox so the author may continue to work on this article/list. It has potential. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
:No, it doesn't. We shouldn't lead editors to believe anything resembling this might be appropriate for inclusion by userfying their junk for them. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 18:14, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete per Biruitorul. This is original research. Stifle (talk) 11:14, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete. Obvious original research. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 18:14, 18 April 2009 (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.