Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hill people
Repeat "vote" from before the relisting. So far as I can deduce, most non-keeps are now concerns about what can certainly be improved upon and do not require |TNT. The only argument I find giving a reason for a solid delete is the one which argued a slippery slope ending in Lonely people. The line of reasoning I find valid, but the reasoning itself I disagree with. I will try to make my point with a contrast between City people and Mountain people. I looked up City, Hill and Mountain. Although City was almost entirely about humans (not surprising as it is an artificial entity), hill was almost entirely about terrain and mountain had this Mountain#Mountains and humans|small section on people. Having checked the current status of this article, this discussion and that section from the Mountain page, since it is impractical to put all the available information here into there, I find it reasonable that this article becomes the main article referred to from that section. I am sure that as there is City|a page about city people, so too there is a page about lonely people in the psychosociology portal maybe, if there is such a thing and I don't see why there couldn't be one if there's enough research on lonely people about why they are lonely, how they are lonely, how they end up doing in life and so on; which I am convinced that the principal contributor to this article has adequately demonstrated that there indeed is in the case of mountain people. So, I am still on keep (mainly because the reason to have an article is sufficient coverage as a valid standalone concept, and the reason not to have an article is not because a Slippery slope|slippery slope leads to Argumentum ad absurdum|absurdity
— User:Usedtobecool, 14:06, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:TNT (Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over)