Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Failure (2nd nomination)


 * 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 WP:SNOW keep. It is immediately clear that there will not be a consensus to delete this. BD2412 T 02:14, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Failure
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:DICTDEF. A comprehensive encyclopedia article on this subject is not possible. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 17:57, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:34, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Lightburst (talk) 18:37, 19 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep while agree that we are WP:NOTDICT there are some topics that are better covered with an article. This topic is notable and the article covers all aspects of failure including the perception of failure. We have to be careful not to have WP:SYNTH, but we can overcome that problem with careful and responsible editing. WP:SURMOUNTABLE Lightburst (talk) 18:45, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep . There's certainly more than a DICDEF here. What's here is rather rough in patches, but overall, it's a reasonable attempt at a WP:BCA. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 18:46, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak keep per WP:WORDISSUBJECT: "such articles must go beyond what would be found in a dictionary entry (definition, pronunciation, etymology, use information, etc.), and include information on the social or historical significance of the term." which this (roughly) does and further sources do exist to improve it so I don't think WP:NOTDICT applies. However, while it could change, the article is still written very much like an extended definition.  GN-z11  ☎  ★ 19:19, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per above.★Trekker (talk) 19:45, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per GN-z11. The article covers more than just a dictionary definition and includes information about usage in pop culture and theories as to the origin and ubiquity of failures. It may not cover them particularly well, but that isn't solved by deletion. — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:17, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep There are articles about failure in several encyclopedias including the Encyclopedia of Educational Psychology; The Encyclopedia of Phobias, Fears, and Anxieties; Encyclopedia of Applied Psychology; Encyclopedia of Finance; Encyclopedia of Geomorphology; Encyclopedia of Heart Diseases; &c.  Naturally these are not complete because this is a broad topic, which occurs in many contexts.  This is not a reason to delete anything; it just means that we require care in presenting the topic. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:36, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep: Per User:Andrew Davidson. We have articles on other broad, confusing concepts: Power (social and political), Social influence, Discovery (observation), Knowledge etc., etc. Like these perplexing ideas, failure is central to human existence, hard to nail down precisely, and clearly encyclopedic. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 23:55, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep because apparently the nominator needs to experience it, and better appreciate its significance. — Toughpigs (talk) 01:08, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I was entertained by how much of this article was plagiarized. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 01:35, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for checking. I did not. Lightburst (talk) 01:57, 20 July 2020 (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.