Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Failure
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. —freak(talk) 14:30, Sep. 6, 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Failure
- Completing unfinished AFD nomination. Nominated by User:Steverapaport — ERcheck (talk) 13:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete: There may be abstract nouns out there that have enough cultural weight or history to require an encyclopedia page describing them. I contend that "Failure" is not one of these. The article is essentially empty, as it pretty much should be entirely. It belongs only in Wiktionary.
I was at first shocked to see that there are groups of Wikipedians who spend time deleting pages they feel are unencyclopedic; it wasn't until I saw this article that I understood the need for them. Steve Rapaport 20:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep it: "Failure" is used in enough contexts and disciplines to deserve a page. Someday someone will expand nicely on the "Criteria" section, and the "See also" is itself worth keeping the page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lunsford2000 (talk • contribs) 21:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete It belongs in Wiktionary, without the lists of lists. BTLizard 13:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep agree with Lunsford, at very least this should be a disambig page. I could see these statements expanded and sourced. I think there might be a place here for the failure googlebomb as well. Borisblue 15:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Looks useful User:Yy-bo 15:20, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, valid encyclopedic article, ridiculous AFD nomination. --Terence Ong (T | C) 16:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete it, because failure is not one of the words in which a wikipedia should have a page for. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.47.168.92 (talk • contribs).
- Keep This article discusses far more than the dictionary definition of the word. (aeropagitica) 20:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep The article is about the concept of failure and its application in culture, it's not merely a defintion. Dina 21:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per above. Danny Lilithborne 21:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Dina and (aeropagitica). ... discospinster talk 22:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Might need cleanup, but definitely keep. Linguofreak 01:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. See also: this nomination. RFerreira 19:07, 5 September 2006 (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.
