Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of blessings in disguise


 * 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   delete. WP:SNOW postdlf (talk) 15:41, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

List of blessings in disguise

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This list can be nothing other than subjective WP:OR. It was PRODded, but deprodded without comment by the original editor. There might be a list of "Events which have been called "a blessing in disguise", with references, but even that would not be a useful contribution to the encyclopedia.  Pam  D  09:21, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Correction I stated that the article was deprodded without comment because the edit summary just said "fix", but the editor did make a comment on the talk page. Pam  D  10:26, 22 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep: the disambig page Blessing in Disguise formerly contained only music and drama items, even though examples of these exist in the real world.


 * For example, the disasterous crash of the Zeppelin LZ 4, an early airship, resulted in a tidal wave of financial donations from the public which put the venture onto a sound financial position, making the disaster a blessing in disguise. This should be put onto a page(s) with blessing in disguise' in its title, and the Zeppelin page should be make to refer to these Blessing in Disguise page(s).


 * And there are other real examples, which can be added as they are noticed.


 * The List of blessings in disguise contains a number of items organised into categories.   Tabletop (talk) 09:49, 22 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Strong, undisguised delete. Pretty much any disaster short of the end of the world (which, by the way, is a little tardy, no?) benefits somebody somewhere. Should we list them all? Clarityfiend (talk) 10:30, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. When it comes down to it, the definition of "blessing in disguise" is something that is ultimately a matter of personal opinion. Some think that a BID is something that initially looks bad but is revealed to be something good. Others think it's something that is bad that eventually produces something that is for the greater good. The point is that the definition is incredibly loose and by the above argument over a zeppelin crash I could make the argument that the Holocaust was a "blessing in disguise" because it produced several wonderful pieces of literature, art, and plays that were inspired by people's experiences or written during the Holocaust. You might initially think that's a big of an overly severe example, but that's pretty much the epitome of what ClarityFiend's argument states. Everything everywhere could have something that could be considered a "blessing in disguise" by someone. There is no benefit that would be seen as so overwhelmingly good that it would be a unanimous blessing in disguise. Because the definition itself is so loose and the qualifications for fitting that definition (assuming we could all agree on an exact definition) would be even more debatable, there is no reason why this page passes notability guidelines.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   10:45, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I also argue against the concept of an article entitled Events which have been called "a blessing in disguise" because at what point would an event merit a mention on a page like that? Would it make the list if one source comments that it is? Ten sources? Even if the one person mentioning it was a very notable person (such as the Pope or President Obama), would that really make it worth mentioning in the list if nobody else says the same or comments on the notable person's comment? It's just such a loose criteria for lists such as these and it's unlikely that we'd find enough people commenting on the "blessing in disguise" for there to be any true consensus. It'd ultimately be an article based on opinion as to what merits being placed in the article and what wouldn't.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   10:52, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * BTW The case could be made that the exposure of the Holocaust inspired a world-wide reaction against racism and religious bigotry that continues today, and has made life better for millions of people. Kitfoxxe (talk) 22:22, 22 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Strong delete Overly subjective OR. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 13:00, 22 December 2012 (UTC)


 * obvious delete Indiscriminate and simply opinion. Mangoe (talk) 13:03, 22 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - this list's criterion is fundamentally indefensible and indiscriminate, so it must go. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:03, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 22 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete I just added Wiktionary's definition to the Blessing in disguise page. Now readers will know what the expression means. As others have said it is not WP's job to document how the expression has been used, or provide examples. Kitfoxxe (talk) 22:20, 22 December 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.