Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/House organ


 * 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The result was   Speedy Keep as the nomination was withdrawn and there are no delete votes. (non-admin closure) Yoenit (talk) 22:21, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

House organ

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Somewhat pointless stub which hasn't improved in the four years since it was created. Entirely unreferenced and unsourced, except for a link to an answers.com page, which is similar enough in wording and structure as to make me believe this is a copyvio. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:01, 4 October 2010 (UTC) Nomination withdrawn, but thanks to Pointillist for trying to make me not feel like an idiot. This was mostly an over-reaction to the part about The General being the cannonical example. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:54, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Per Deletion policy and Editing policy, we don't delete articles because they haven't improved. Many articles have taken years to be written, including articles on whole sections of the planet.  We only delete articles because they cannot be improved, because no sources exist.  What did you do to check that no sources exist?  You don't tell us, and you don't tell us what you did and didn't come up with as a result.  I suspect that you didn't check even half of the many names that these things are known by.  &#9786;  This is not least because if you had, you'd know that plenty of sources exist and that this is a valid stub with scope for expansion, which we keep.  Uncle G (talk) 18:22, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Somewhat pointless nomination. I have restored the content about the General which the nominator removed.  I myself have many copies of the General and was referring to it just the other week.  Small world.... Colonel Warden (talk) 19:17, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable topic that needs more references, which presumably could be extracted from the extensive reading list. Cullen328 (talk) 20:12, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Always click the Google news search BEFORE you nominate something for deletion. There are plenty of results that appear, the first two from the Wall Street Journal and the Los Angeles Times.   D r e a m Focus  20:34, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I've heard of and witnessed this term and the object it describes. Sources are good and while it's not on the track to being a GA it does communicte the point. Hasteur (talk) 21:04, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, but I'm glad RoySmith nominated it. How else are pathetic pieces of work like this ever going to get fixed? I'll try to improve it over the next few days. - Pointillist (talk) 21:34, 4 October 2010 (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.