| Revision as of 02:50, 15 January 2025 editMy very best wishes (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users56,507 edits d← Previous edit | Revision as of 03:12, 15 January 2025 edit undoReywas92 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers81,320 editsNo edit summaryTag: 2017 wikitext editorNext edit → | ||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
| *'''Delete''' It's not good editorial practice to repeat political accusations without any attempt to convey to readers whether they are true or not. The wildfire article naturally places the political discourse in the proper context. (] · ]) ''']''' 02:27, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | *'''Delete''' It's not good editorial practice to repeat political accusations without any attempt to convey to readers whether they are true or not. The wildfire article naturally places the political discourse in the proper context. (] · ]) ''']''' 02:27, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Delete'''. A content fork. There are several controversies related to these wildfires, but they belong to main page on this subject.] (]) 02:50, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | *'''Delete'''. A content fork. There are several controversies related to these wildfires, but they belong to main page on this subject.] (]) 02:50, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Delete''' If all you can write is three sentences, you very obviously don't need to have a separate article for it – put the info in the main page. Per above, not a good topic for an article either. ]<sup>]</sup> 03:12, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 03:12, 15 January 2025
2025 California wildfires controversy
New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- How to contribute
- Introduction to deletion process
- Guide to deletion (glossary)
- Help, my article got nominated for deletion!
- 2025 California wildfires controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Does not need to be a separate article. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 02:00, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Environment, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:17, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Delete It's not good editorial practice to repeat political accusations without any attempt to convey to readers whether they are true or not. The wildfire article naturally places the political discourse in the proper context. (t · c) buidhe 02:27, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Delete. A content fork. There are several controversies related to these wildfires, but they belong to main page on this subject.My very best wishes (talk) 02:50, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Delete If all you can write is three sentences, you very obviously don't need to have a separate article for it – put the info in the main page. Per above, not a good topic for an article either. Reywas92 03:12, 15 January 2025 (UTC)