Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Advertising and disability


 * 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 Userfy to User:Black Falcon/Advertising and disability (the article creator,, doesn't seem to be an active editor). —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-05 09:39Z 

Advertising and disability

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

A personal essay: NOR. Utgard Loki 15:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and tidy up a bit. It doesn't seem to be original research, it cites about 40 sources. The sources could do with being turned into links where appropriate and the article could do with being annotated to refer to them. Jules1975 15:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is a good essay, but it is original research. Userfy if the creator wants it. Sam Blacketer 22:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep or Userfy. Claims of NOR have been made, but not proven with reference to any particular statements that are inherently unverifiable (see the definition of original research).  That being said, I would highly suggest that the author include in-text citations.  -- Black Falcon 04:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Revising my initial suggestion. This reads too much like an essay to be kept.  However, it should not be deleted if the creator is willing to accept it. -- Black Falcon 08:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: I really don't believe that one proves that something is original research.  Rather, articles prove that they are not original research by satisfying WP:V.  In this case, it wasn't that there was no citation, but rather that it was a meditation upon a subject, an "essay."  In other words, the citations served only in the purpose of an argumentative proposition.  Utgard Loki 13:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You are right: the lack of OR should be demonstrated by sourcing. However, OR refers only to material that is inherently unverifiable (not unverified).  There are many such statements in the article, I'll admit, but it could be the basis for a better article (at the least, it provides relevant sources).  That's why I'm suggesting that it be userfied.  -- Black Falcon 17:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Note to the closing admin. If the consensus is to delete and the article's creator is either unwilling to take it or does not express an opinion, I would like to receive the article into my userspace.  Using the given sources as a foundation, I think an encyclopedic article could be written on the subject.  Thank you, Black Falcon 17:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is for encyclopaedia articles, not a dump of the paper you just turned in. GassyGuy 08:01, 1 March 2007 (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.