Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Failed history


 * 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 Delete. --Luigi30 (Ta&lambda;k) 14:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Failed history

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

As I said when I put the prod tag on the article, "This article has little to no encyclopedic value, it is simply a collection of random events. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information". After looking at it a bit more, I believe it also violates no original research and avoid neologisms, as the title itself is not a term in general use, as shown on the article's talk page. — Mi ra  07:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete unsourced, original research. Consign this article to the realm of articles that failed to be kept. Flyingtoaster1337 09:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete lacks any citations, no evidence that the term exists, just a long list of disconnected factoids. WP:NEO, WP:NOT, WP:NOR, WP:RS, WP:V  --JJLatWiki 17:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NEO and WP:NOR. Walton monarchist89 18:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as WP:OR in the sense it's just semi-related facts linked together. SkierRMH 19:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Appears to be made-up term to describe a plethora of things - none of which are "failed history", whatever that means. Agent 86 22:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Title is a non-notable neologism. Content is an indiscriminate collection of information grouped by original research. WJBscribe 23:31, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete -- I think that this article could theoretically be salvaged (currently it's basically a collection of quaint and curious anecdotes, mostly unsourced), but it seems it's very unlikely to happen... AnonMoos 07:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Consider the comments I made on the talk page (which see), which I will summarise here:

There are effectively two parts:

The list of items and texts (with a passing reference to the TV programs changes) and the science fiction/technology segments. The latter can be adapted and posted to the Science Fiction and the History of Technology pages.

I used the term "failed history" as a working title - some variant on "Commemorative objects which weren't" would be appropriate, for the "list of things" - which is at least as "useful" as the entries on Paul Katzoff, Sam Chisholm, Grand Prairie Independent School District and Fauntleroy, Seattle, Washington - to pick out four entries I called up on Random Article. ("Nothing against" any of them.)

Jackiespeel 18:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not fair to compare one insignificant article to another insignificant article as justification to keep one. This article also seems to introduce a new term (WP:NEO) with no reliable sources (WP:RS}]) to indicate it existed prior to WP.  This article also seems to be simply an outlet for original research ([[WP:NOR).  I'm sure a couple of the articles you mentioned are good candidates for deletion but for some reason haven't been, but that doesn't mean that all more useful articles should be kept.  --JJLatWiki 23:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * There will always be some marginal articles which the viewer considers too marginal to keep (bland generalisation).

Alternative suggestion regarding the list of objects (which do exist - many people will have seen the photo of Truman holding up the newspaper in question, and some of the others could be traced otherwise. As the objects are ephemera/commemorative items, the list is transferred to those pages (or the talk pages thereof) and reference to the individual items on the several topic pages. Thus, if someone wishes to reconstruct the article under a better heading and with more references etc, it can be done.

I was kite flying - and sometimes such articles develop into something interesting - eg New Year's Resolution and Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells (both of which I suggested were potential Wiktionary terms) and at other times there are alternative solutions. Jackiespeel 23:48, 29 January 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.