Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Is the glass half empty or half full?


 * 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. Mailer Diablo 23:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Is the glass half empty or half full?
Not really encyclopedic, very opiniated and POV, no sources (and to that end, unlikely to find sources). Maybe a section in a different article would be appropriate. Newnam(talk) 04:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom--  Mertens21  Talk  05:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep bad faith nomination, could have been solved by tagging it POV and in need of sources. Since this is very well-known, sources should be easy to find. (Oh, and please add new AfD at the bottom of this page next time). -- Koffieyahoo 06:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. This doesn't seem very encyclopedic, particularly with a title like that.  The concept might warrant mention in a broader article somewhere but I can't think of an appropriate one.  Arkyan 07:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom - this isn't a host for people's essays. Byrgenwulf 08:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Opinions can be edited out over time. Deet 11:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and tag for sources etc... By the history appears to have survived a VfD in the past - Peripitus (Talk) 12:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. In the article history it appears somebody tried to VFD it, but was unsuccessful in it — providing it wasn't just vandalism at the time.  —   pd_THOR  undefined | 13:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Byrgenwulf's comments. This is someone's personal essay. No sources are cited. Violates WP:V and WP:OR. If well-known sources are easy-to-find, please cite some. Scorpiondollprincess 13:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep as a well-known and well-used idiom and theory. Needs sources and some WP:V cleanup; but well-written and informative.  —   pd_THOR  undefined | 13:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. I would like to remind Wikipedians that an article is only justified for deletion if the topic isn't a worthwhile subject for an article under Wikipedia rules.  Otherwise, it simply needs cleanup, and while this article does need cleanup, it is certainly notable and sources should be very easy to find.   Da rk Sh ik ar i   13:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. The topic is an encyclopedic idea, but I don't often hear the idiom expressed in this manner. Is a user really going to search for a question, or can we come up with a better name (or place) for the article? (My weak keep doesn't imply I think the content should be deleted, it's just that I haven't ruled out the possibility of a move or merge.) Jacqui ★ 14:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed here. The article name isn't very useful, but I can't think of a better one.  Anyone have any ideas?   Da rk Sh ik ar i   14:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't there be articles on optimism/pessimism: that's really what the problem comes down to; a mention of the expression could be made there (if it isn't already). And since it is a philosophical problem, the little schpiel about "imagining you are in charge of ... " (which reads like a bad teambuilding corporate waste of time) must go, no matter what.  Does anyone have any serious objections to me going and excising it? Byrgenwulf 14:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep per Jacqui — FireFox  ( talk ) 14:27, 31 July '06
 * Comment &mdash; The glass is clearly twice as big as it needs to be, and so is inefficient. It was undoubtedly designed to government specifications. ;-) &mdash; RJH (talk) 15:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, well known expression. LOL @ previous comment – Alensha  [[image:Fiore 01.svg|20px]]  talk  15:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and Comment Keep: Wikipedia has many articles on well-known phrases and terms of speech, see Fork in the road, Standing on the shoulders of giants, Survival of the fittest, Pay through the nose, etc for other examples. This is no less worthy for inclusion then any of these others.  It should be kept, and worked on to improve.  Comment: I can see how the title would be difficult to find, but I can't think of a better one.  At any rate, the problem is easily solved with redirects from other possible search terms.  I have added several such redirects.
 * Keep - bad-faith nomination. Should have tagged it POV, per Koffieyahoo. -- Big  top  16:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep as well known expression and per Jacqui. GrapePie 17:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Ample amount of information on a well-known (and therefore at least partially notable) phrase. --Gray Porpoise 17:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Dark Shakari and Grey Porpoise. Joe 18:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, inappropriate nomination. AFD is not a cleanup tag. --Core des at talk. ^_^ 19:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge article itself seems fine to me, however it, and similar articles with little more possible content than the existing stubs, could form a List of philosphical expressions (or some other suitable merge list page). LinaMishima 20:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: I am very disappointed that people keep throwing around "bad-faith nomination". I was serious when I listed this at AfD, and am still convinced it does not belong, not solely for content being POV, but because this is simply not encyclopedic. If you disagree with that assessment, then say so...don't tell me I'm listing it in bad-faith. For what reason would I have to do this? This is my first AfD listing, and I tried to follow all of the steps. To Koffieyahoo, in edit mode it says "", not "Add entries at the bottom of the list. "(Oh, and please add new AfD at the bottom of this page next time)" is a little uncivil. Just one request to the rest of the people who comment here. Please don't throw degrading remarks about me around, just because I nominated an article that you think should stay, or because I'm relatively new (and for the record, I've been around for over a year with a different username before this). Newnam(talk) 20:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The reason for bad faith probably stems from the happy existance of many similar articles. Before commenting, I went looking, and such pages as Have one's cake and eat it too do indeed exist. You are, of course, right to remind people to be civil towards you. LinaMishima 21:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Keep Why delete? It's a common saying. LLBBooks 00:14, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Important and popular expression. Nominating this is like nominating Meaning of life. -newkai | talk | contribs 22:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, it just needs sources (maybe starting with Filling the Glass: The Skeptic's Guide to Positive Thinking in Business :). I don't think the nom was in bad faith. Z iggurat 01:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep I say keep, it has to do with philosophy after all. Popcorn2008 03:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC)Popcorn2008
 * Keep as per above. -(chubbstar) — talk


 * 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.