Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of erroneous newspaper headlines


 * 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. Davewild (talk) 16:54, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

List of erroneous newspaper headlines

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Not sure where to list this but I guess WP:NOTNEWS and List of trivia. While these are notable and apt in their parent articles. A List of erroneous newspaper headlines makes no sense. Gnevin (talk) 16:17, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete indiscriminate trivia. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 16:35, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak delete per WP:IINFO.  Erpert  Who is this guy? 16:53, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete: I agree that each headline would be better suited in its parent article; the list as a whole is trivial. - Cactusjump (talk) 21:40, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Article receives largest snowball keep vote in Wikipedia history. Oh wait, that's erroneous... Clarityfiend (talk) 21:54, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * So that a vote to delete or keep? Gnevin (talk) 00:25, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Why it's a vote to keep, of course, couldn't you tell? :) Mandsford 00:32, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Being sarcastic isn't helpful to our non native English editors, those wishing to get a quick over view of the discussion. A simple Keep or Delete should be here Gnevin (talk) 00:59, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That would be a delete. Only "Dewey Defeats Truman" gets any real notice. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:17, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I was going to add-- Clarity won the edit conflict race this time-- that there is no requirement about what "should be here", nor are the participants in a discussion required to confine their statements to "a simple keep or delete". Sometimes, we editors simply make a comment or an observation, and we're all welcome to do so.  I don't think anyone would have interpreted Clarityfiend's humorous comment as a keep vote, but she or he wasn't required to "vote" nor to respond to the answer a "yes or no" question.  I'd add that your English is very good, and that I wouldn't have known that it wasn't your first language if you hadn't said so.  My comment wasn't intended as a put down of your understanding of our language, and I'm sorry that it came across that way. Mandsford 02:29, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If no one would have interpreted the comment as a Keep, the question to clarify would not have been asked. Sarcasm does not always translate well over a text-based medium. -- RoninBK T C 10:14, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep but rename. This was, at one time, a small section in Dewey Defeats Truman and was then spun off into an article all its own.  Unfortunately, the title makes it sound as if it's a bunch of funny Jay Leno headlines, when in fact it is a list of erroneous news stories.  Usually, the reason is that an editor made the journalistic mistake of choosing to beat a deadline without confirming the accuracy of the story.  I would prefer to say redirect, but there's not a good redirect or merge target.  There are no "parent articles" for these to be dispersed to ("News coverage of JFK assassination" would be an appropriate parent article, while "John F. Kennedy assassination" would not be).  I'm surprised that it survived this long; usually, putting the word "list" in the headline of a Wikipedia is an invitation for the article to get nominated.  Without some context, of course, it's a collection of trivia that, for the most part, is not sourced to something that's verifiable on the internet.  Perhaps there's some article about journalism ethics that deals with the need for accuracy in reporting.  Mandsford 23:10, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete A few isolated and unrelated cases is hardly newsworthy. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 00:22, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I say keep, otherwise all would be scattered and lost. Maybe Wikipedia needs a "metadata" category, which compiles lists or comparisons of "true" entries. Until then, the better alternative is to keep. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.65.94.224 (talk) 18:42, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * What? What kind of argument is that?  Erpert  Who is this guy? 18:57, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll ask one of our non native English editors. Mandsford 22:42, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Apart from Dewey Defeats Truman it is breathtakingly trivial, especially for those of us from outside the US. Andreclos (talk) 00:38, 9 January 2011 (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.