Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eyesore


 * 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 no consensus. ➨ REDVEЯS is a satellite and will be set alight 10:09, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Eyesore

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

IP removed PROD. PROD read: "...this cites no references, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary" - Listing as a courtesy; I have no opinion on it. Scarian Call me Pat 23:02, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete as a simple dicdef with no references. OlenWhitaker   • talk to me or don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 23:08, 15 March 2008 (UTC) 23:08, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with Olen. It serves its purpose as a dictionary definition much more usefully than an encylopedic article. Besides, its mostly a stub. --Invisib l e Di plo mat 666 23:17, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Disagree. If it contains examples of eyesores, then it's no longer a dictionary entry. There's certainly no rule against stubs either.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 23:20, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:DICT. Prewitt81 (talk) 23:32, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep This article has potential to become much more than a dictionary entry. The topic is much more than the word and its usage.  It covers an important issue of local politics, planning law and aesthetics which will be familiar to most of us in everyday life.  I have reworked the article to add some references and show its potential. Colonel Warden (talk) 01:01, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It's better, and it is now referenced, but I'm still not sure how much more could be said about it. It seems to me like it will probably never be more than a long, possibly illustrated dicdef.  What did you have in mind for further improvement?  I'm not married to deletion; if you have an idea, I'm willing to reconsider, maybe even help save the page.  I just can't think what else could be there.  OlenWhitaker   • talk to me or don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 01:42, 16 March 2008 (UTC) 01:42, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Article is an ideal stub WP:stub. As such, it should be neither deleted nor merged. --Firefly322 (talk) 09:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - I'm with OlenWhitaker  - I don't see how it can be more than an illustrated dicdef; but I'll watch it and may change my !vote if it develops. JohnCD (talk) 10:12, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep — There could be a world of references and usage available to base an article on. Re-evaluate in 6 months and see if we have a viable encyclopedia article. EJF (talk) 13:12, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep, it's real, it's factual and like any article, it takes time to get sources and all that. I've tried wikifying it. -- Alisyn talk  22:45, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete dictionary definition, which could be made into an article only by spurious lists of examples. Also the term is entirely subjective, what is an eyesore to someone may be seen positively by some - an NPOV outcome is hard to imagine. Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 12:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I wonder how many editors have really thought about the phrase POV and its various meanings. For example, in everyday language it's not uncommon to say "from a practical point of view." Another example, in science it's not uncommon to read "from a Newtonian point of view" meaning Newtonian mechanics.  Just as exclusion of either of these two "POV's" was never intended by WP:POV policy, neither was such policy ever intended to exclude such non-neutral topics as cunt or fuck or shit, etc.  In comparison to these three more or less meat-and-potatoes types of wikipedia articles, eyesore as a topic would be far easier to grow and maintain as an encyclopedic, unbiased article. --Firefly322 (talk) 20:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete as per Jonathan Oldenbuck. BWH76 (talk) 15:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - it has improved significantly since nomination. Also, I agree with Firefly322 - I don't think Jonathan Oldenbuck has understood the policies if he believes we should delete every topic that might be the subject of POV. If you read the article in its current state you see that the term is treated in an entirely NPOV manner.  Lampman  Talk to me!  16:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * keep per Lampman. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:10, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * keep it's a stub, and there's no reason to think this can't make a fine article that is far more content rich than a dictionary entry.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 23:20, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep: Re-evaluate in 6 months and see if we have a viable encyclopedia article. --Eleassar my talk 09:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:DICT. Could be redirect or Disambig page for medical articles like Stye. - Jahnx ( talk ) 09:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The medical usage is described by the OED as obsolete. The actual dictionary definitions that it has are:


 * A soreness of the eyes. Obs.
 * Something permanently offensive to the sight; an ugly mark or feature.
 * A cause of annoyance, offence, or vexation; an object of dislike or disgust.


 * Colonel Warden (talk) 10:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Jahnx, lucky us that this entry is a lot longer than a dicdef. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:04, 22 March 2008 (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.