Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Intermission


 * 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 keep. Issues raised of WP:NOTDICT, WP:V, WP:OR, and so forth were described nearly unanimously by editors participating in the discussion as not being present in the article after significant improvements had been made to it during the course of this deletion discussion. --joe deckertalk to me 02:48, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Intermission

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Intermission is just a dictionary term that defines a break during a performance, something already mentioned in the disambiguation page. As a result, not one source has been added to the article since its creation over 8 1/2 years ago. The second paragraph describing what people typically do during intermissions, while true based on my experience working in theater, is written almost entirely through original research and therefore, unverifiable and not appropriate for Wikipedia. The third and fourth paragraphs also lack citations, reliable research, and verifiability and are completely irrelevant since breaks during sports games are usually not called "Intermissions" The Legendary Ranger (talk) 22:39, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Transwiki to Wiktionary. We've had nearly the entire life of the project to add sources, and the fact that there are still none just goes to show — this will never be more than a dicdef. There is no possible way to discuss the actual concept of an intermission in an encyclopedic fashion; it's just a break in a performance, followed by "oh, some people get snacks and drinks, go to the bathroom or smoke". Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 00:33, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per major improvement in article. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:50, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - It could be saved, but needs WP:TNT. Bearian (talk) 21:45, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. My first reaction was to vote delete, but the more I think about it, the more I'm convinced something could be made of this. It seems likely that a history of intermissions could be cobbled together. This and this (slide 38) claim it originally arose due to a need to change reels, while this article discusses reasons why it went the way of the dodo. A list of films with intermissions (e.g. Gone with the Wind, Lawrence of Arabia and Fantasia) would be useful. There are DVDs of classic intermission film clips. Who can forget "Let's All Go to the Lobby"? I'll start digging around and see what I can come up with. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:27, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep per Clarityfiend and per the substantial improvements made to the article since it was nominated. --Arxiloxos (talk) 05:08, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep When I saw this AfD before, I thought there was probably scope for an article, and it's now significantly improved with some good references, going well beyond a dictionary definition. Well done. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:58, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Not written too badly and has got a sufficient amount of references. It seems fine. --Chip123456 (talk) 16:05, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:HEY; much work has been done to the article, which I thought could not be saved. Bearian (talk) 17:11, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Some of it done more than a day before you made your first comment in this discussion. I've been curious about this phenomenon, which I've quietly observed happen several times at AFD, where people comment on a past state of the article rather than its state at the time that they came to the AFD discussion.  (At least this time someone didn't come along saying "per The Legendary Ranger" when the nomination clearly didn't match the article, as has happened in some discussions.)  Were you not shown the rewritten article when you first followed the link from this discussion?  Uncle G (talk) 18:42, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep despite the weird "(the 1915 landmark The Birth of a Nation could take over three hours at 16 frames per second)", written as though the film could have been shorter if only the projectionist had speeded it up. Well, yes, and a lot of other films, too, I should imagine. Anarchangel (talk) 22:17, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep: article has potential and is more than a dictionary definition. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:31, 16 May 2012 (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.