Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dust bunny


 * 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 of the debate was Keep. Just enough for consensus, methinks. --F a ng Aili 說嗎? 00:58, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Dust bunny
This is a dictionary definition that has been transwikied to Wiktionary, and I don't think there's much to say about dust bunnies other than what they are. Brian G. Crawford 00:03, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Brian G. Geedubber 00:25, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * But what about their Treatment in the media, Habitat, Diet, Life history strategy, Population control techniques and other sections?...Oh...right...I mean Delete.&mdash;WAvegetarian&bull; CONTRIBUTIONS TALK &bull; EMAIL &bull; 00:29, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment/Clarification That was only half tongue-in-cheek. If someone expands this more than it is to actually include full sized sections on Treatment in the media, Population control techniques, Danger to humans, etc. per Hyperbole, then I'll say Keep. Until it has those sections written, or someone promising to write them, I'm not convinced it's worth keeping.&mdash;WAvegetarian&bull; CONTRIBUTIONS TALK &bull; EMAIL &bull; 10:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't forget Dust Bunnies in popular culture... KWH 12:08, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. --[[Image:Flag of India.svg|20px]]Srik e it ( talk ¦  ✉  )  00:45, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete its already in wikitionary. - Patman2648 00:54, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per comments belows - Patman2648 03:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete dicdef.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 01:22, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - dicdef. Metamagician3000 01:47, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --Ter e nce Ong 03:40, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge with dust. At least in principle, it's a legitimate, study-able subject.  The article as it stands does go beyond a dicdef... not far enough beyond to warrant its own article, but far enough to warrant merging.  --Allen 05:32, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep; the arguments below have changed my mind. --Allen 02:17, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment an artist has used them as a material to make sculpture out of (true)&mdash;I can't remember the name, but it was in the press some months ago in the UK. Tyrenius 05:35, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. I'm again shocked at the delete votes, given the prominence and easy verifibility of this. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 05:36, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge per Allen. Sorry Guy 05:37, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, lots of pop culture references - eg, the Dust Bunnies on The Big Comfy Couch Thethethe 06:01, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep - This topic has significance, and the article is far more than a dicdef - there's discussion about the danger of dust mites, references to dust bunnies in pop culture, solutions to dust bunny problems. Undoubtedly, the article could grow further.  We keep so many articles on fictional star trek and video game characters, and so many articles that are of interest to only a couple hundred people tops, that it seems ridiculous to me whenever someone afd's a real, tangible, universal thing like this.  --Hyperbole 07:34, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Hyperbole. -- E ivindt@c 10:54, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep- good enough for me. Reyk  YO!  11:31, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * C'mon guys, let's be serious - delete.--Smerus 12:10, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, worthy of a dictionary definition but not an encyclopedia article. Robin Johnson 14:43, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Dicdef; no real "explantory" value, thus should be in Wikitionary only. Batmanand | Talk 15:23, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Seems to have become part of mainstream culture (for whatever reason): the aforementioned Big Comfy Couch characters, the title of a Bettie Serveert album, a Howard Kaylan album, etc. etc. etc. Could certainly be expanded. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  15:56, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep as a fairly established idiom. J I P  | Talk 16:24, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Several other pages link to dust bunny. Keep, or merge to dust and redirect. Anthony Appleyard 16:47, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep as this is a notable and verifiable subject which should be documented in an encyclopaedia. Yamaguchi先生 18:11, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep There's a little bit more to say about dust bunnies than what's suitable for a dictionary, it appears. - O bli (Talk) ? 18:58, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, per Hyperbole. --Edcolins 20:09, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep It's even an artistic medium (see my previous "comment") Tyrenius 02:27, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete there is not really much more that can be said on a dustbunny. Unfortunately votes such as Hyperbole's above: "there's discussion about the danger of dust mites, references to dust bunnies in pop culture, solutions to dust bunny problems. Undoubtedly, the article could grow further." shows that while this might be expandable, none of it would be encyclopedic, most would be original research, and none of it would pass our verifiability policy. It's already been transwiki'd let it go.   ALKIVAR &trade;[[Image:Radioactive.svg|18px|]] 03:04, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Hyperbole. -Goldom 莨夊ｩｱ 謚慕ｨｿ 03:07, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. It is simply a dictionary definition.  I can't honestly see how this could ever be turn into an encyclopedia entry. Ted 03:10, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge to Dust --Astrokey 44 15:20, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - lots of expansion possibility. AnonEMouse 18:41, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - There seems to be quite a bit of encyclopedic text there on the subject. The danger of dust mites is certainly verifiable, not OR and encyclopedic.--Prosfilaes 21:01, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, although this isn't ever going to be a great article --Deville (Talk) 02:09, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep: properly referenced and interesting (particularly when I discovered that one of the references was written by a distant relative—which obviously doesn't affect my opinion on the article, but demonstrates the kind of thing which can happen when Wikipedia includes articles on less well-known subjects as well as the immediately obvious). HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 11:09, 5 May 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.