Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fixer-Upper


 * 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The result was Nomination Withdrawn per. UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 21:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Fixer-Upper

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

Prod removed by DGG as "well known concept,can easily be expanded" however it's a dicdef that already exists at Wiktionary. Both the source and the article refer to it as a 'term', which I agree with. I just don't see the potential for encyclopedic expansion so I'm bringing it here. TRAVELLINGCARI My storyTell me yours 03:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC) Withdrawn, see below TRAVELLINGCARI My storyTell me yours 21:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep There are entire books about investing in fixer-uppers, so there must be something more to say about the topic. We'd have to make sure the article doesn't turn into a pure how-to guide, of course, but the potential for a good article is there. Zagalejo^^^ 04:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Good stub for an article, with all sorts of possibilities for expansion. The term has been in use since the 1940s in the real estate business, and the name seems to have been inspired by the 1935 Laurel & Hardy film, and the concept has been examined in fiction, such as in the film "The Money Pit".   With the expansion of home improvement and "flipping" a house, one could say that there has been a growth in the fixer-upper industry.   Since there are so many ways to fix up a house, I don't think it could ever become a how-to article.  Mandsford (talk) 04:39, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. It's certainly got the potential to be more than just a dictionary term. matt91486 (talk) 06:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. This has potential, so it's a fixer-upper, not a tearer-downer. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Question clearly this is headed toward WP:SNOW but I have a question in the interim. How does this get expanded so it's not a dicdef or a how-to? The only avenues I see for expansion are the origins of the term, which is still a dic-def or as Zagalejoo found, 'how to books', which we're all in agreement is not good. I'm really just curious what the 'keeps' feel is a manner of expansion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Travellingcari (talk • contribs) 12:39, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep WP:DP, Pages that can be improved should be edited or tagged, not nominated for deletion. It's marked as a stub, and a whole industry has spawned around these types of things. Yngvarr (c) 12:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment in general, agreed. I've fixed a lot of articles I've come across in the backlog but I also think not every concept needs an article, which is why I brought it here for discussion. Note also, this article had been tagged -- for 9 months. I think stub/article creators also share the responsibility for making sure there's some level of content, otherwise articles can easily be left in limbo, which benefits no one. TRAVELLINGCARI My storyTell me yours 16:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Given that argument, would there be a better (more fully developed) article for this information to be merged into? I looked at real estate real fast, but that's not entirely appropriate. Renovation, maybe, or real estate renovation (if it existed)... Just throwing some ideas out. I know AFD isn't the place to discuss improvements, but until there is some clear alternative, I'd have to keep with my original assessment above. Yngvarr (c) 16:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * it's a big subject, with multiple aspects. Renovation is much more general. As for stubs, the virtues of having them is that someone will improve them; even our best and longest-lived articles started out very small. We do need a way of getting back to them,and  that's what the tags are for. Some devote their efforts to widening the range of coverage in WP, others to increasing quality of articles--the two approaches are complementary & one shouldn't denigrate the other approach. when we get small articles that haven't been improved in 3 or 4 years, then its time to get concerned; not 9 months--in general the problem of keeping WP up-to-date is one we will increasingly be faced with. DGG (talk) 17:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * merge could work, but I don't know where. I don't think renovation is too general, but is there something else? I agree with DGG that stubs can be beneficial, but we don't need stubs for anything. So far I've seen a lot on 'this could be improved/expanded' but there don't appear to be any sources that are not how-to/dif-def. I think there could be a sort of 'glossary' (not the right word, but I think you'd get the general idea) encompassing terms and significance, but I don't think a term has encyclopedic notability on its own. I also don't think 9 months is a bad time to do housekeeping as there is the potential to weed out a lot or fix what should be improved. At the moment, I don't see how this will be expanded, which is why I brought it here. TRAVELLINGCARI My storyTell me yours 17:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * At this point the discussion is about improvement or any other possible future, so I'm going to take some comments to the talk page. Yngvarr (c) 20:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed and withdrawn on those grounds. I'm still not entirely convinced of its notability but that's a better place for the discussion, since this is likely to close per WP:SNOW TRAVELLINGCARI My storyTell me yours 21:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep, and I've added another source (one of only thousands available). The expansion areas include the potential buyers, what sorts of fixing is done, what effect real estate markets have, etc. Notability is derived from secondary sources, not our own perception of whether this is just a "glossary entry". --Dhartung | Talk 20:58, 5 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.