Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lawn Gnome Liberationists


 * 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. (non-admin closure) \ / (⁂) 22:48, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Lawn Gnome Liberationists

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

Article is clearly a joke. May be a topic worth writing on, since there appears to be some news coverage about lawn gnome pranks, but this is not the way to go about it. Text like "Whether by theft or by petition, when Garden Gnomes are set free, and when they are not smashed, they are taken to a wooded area where they can be joined by their fellow refugees. It is hoped that once enough gnomes are gathered they will begin building their own city" really not encyclopaedic. &mdash;Politizer talk / contribs 08:19, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: If anyone does want to take up writing about this, it might also be feasible to userfy this. But personally I think the only way to make an article on this topic will be to delete all this joke stuff and start over from scratch. &mdash;Politizer talk / contribs 08:19, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep CNN article already there as a source, plus oodles more at Google News here . Independent online, USA Today, BBC, it's all there. Article quality isn't really an AfD issue (although I guess that's more a slogan than a reality). But this article just needs a good mopping up. I expect a fascinating Gnome Liberation DYK any day now... A few words of caution though, Gnomes don't lose edit wars. ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Agree with Politizer that much of the current prose treatment is inappropriate, but the topic itself has reliable sources covering it.  I think the appropriate remedy is to improve the article, rather than deleting it. Cbl62 (talk) 09:20, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I have removed much of the content that I believe led to the deletion proposal. I think that the remaining content still needs work, but should be given an opportunity for improvement, rather than being deleted.Cbl62 (talk) 10:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. I've looked at the article and I couldn't find any severe content issues that warrant immediate deletion. In fact I thought it was rather well-written. And it's clearly a notable phenomenon. - Mgm|(talk) 09:52, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I put up merge tags. There is a prexisting article at Garden Gnome Liberation Front. This article was created today. So purpose moving the other article to this name and working on it would be more useful? It seems to have a number of sources and years of history. I think most of this article may have been copied from there anyway, but I haven't looked, and I'm going to sleep. ChildofMidnight (talk) 10:16, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * This article has much more information so upon reconsideration I think a merge from there to here would be appropriate. ChildofMidnight (talk) 10:20, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * merge Travelling Gnome, Travelling gnome prank, Lawn_Gnome_Liberationists, and watch resulting article carefully :D --Dak (talk) 10:43, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as revised, and probably merge the other articles to here--butt hat's a separate discussion after we keep this one. DGG (talk) 18:00, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the various gnome-snatching articles should be merged into a single article. Badagnani (talk) 18:21, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I agree that consolidation and merges would be good. I think a centralized location and redirects would make for a better article on the subject of Gnome snatching/ traveling/ sightings/ sock stealing. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:52, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep No reason to delete, well written, lots of sources (hence notable) and WP:DEL says that if an article can be saved it should not be deleted. Finally, have a look at WP:DEL which says that hoax articles should be deleted, but not articles about a notable hoax. I think that, by analogy, that would apply here. It is worth understanding this distinction before nominating an article for deletion. 203.192.80.31 (talk) 00:07, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply I understand WP:DEL very well; please understand that the article you are looking at now is very different from the article that I originally AfD'ed. Thank you, &mdash;Politizer talk / contribs 00:11, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply' My apologies - but I guess you've learnt a very valuable lesson then, haven't you... don't nominate articles for delation that are capable of supporting a valid article, and that can be improved. Thank you 203.192.80.31 (talk) 05:06, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not always clear that an article is salvageable. And this article was a mess. The nom was brought in good faith and is having a good outcome. Maybe someday there will be an article's for discussion page. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:21, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * There is. It's called, in this case, Talk:Lawn Gnome Liberationists, and one attracts wider attention to it via Requests for comment, Cleanup, Requested mergers, and the several other tools in the toolbox. Uncle G (talk) 22:12, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep: Because it never deserved to be deleted, only cleaned up. I cannot help but think that this AfD proceeding could have been entirely avoided with a bit of talk page or user talk page commentary. --IvoShandor (talk) 07:51, 11 December 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.