Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of oxymora 2


 * 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. Neıl ☎  09:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The result was Delete (non-admin closure) --Strothra (talk) 05:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Reopen until an admin can delete. Non-admins should not close AFDs as delete since they don't have the mop to follow through. --Dhartung | Talk 08:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

List of oxymora
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

While poking about the wiki, I came across this "article," which, unfortunately, does not appear to be up to our standards. It's unsourced, and can also be construed as original research. In addition, it doesn't appear to be of encyclopedic nature. Please note that this is not a knock on the contributors to this article, whose time and efforts are certainly appreciated, albeit just a bit off with regards to this particular article. gaillimh Conas tá tú? 09:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, also, you may want to give this a peek before joining the discussion, as this article had previously been discussed as a candidate for deletion back in March 2005. Cheers   gaillimh  Conas tá tú? 09:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. This list has always had an unfortunate tendency of growing in uncontrolled directions through ill-considered and joke additions. Not worth the trouble. Note: This used to be a problem already when it was not a list but still part of Oxymoron, so I'll forestall a likely suggestion and say explicitly: Don't merge back. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not: A dictionary, usage guide, or indiscriminate collection of information TheBilly (talk) 09:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, any good examples can be added to Oxymoron when sources accompany the oxymoron, demonstrating that it is actual in use and considered to be an oxymoron. John Vandenberg (talk) 10:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, besides the concerns listed above, I'm more than a bit concern about the joke section, which lists Microsoft Works as a joke oxymoron without listing any sources to it actually being used in that way. -- Redfarmer (talk) 11:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as unsourced trivia and POV-pushing nonsense. Snalwibma (talk) 11:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per everyone, unsourced original research, fails WP:NOT and possibly WP:NPOV as well as WP:V. It must go.--h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 12:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete amusing but not encyclopedic; WP:OR. JJL (talk) 12:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete with regret ("this page is seriously funny.") Not a single source has been provided for any of the material in this article, despite request for same.  This page is a target for subjectively funny "oxymora" being added which make political, social etc. statements, such as "happily married".  There is no well-defined criterion for inclusion or exclusion, and no verifiable criterion for putting an example in one section or another of the page.  In the previous AfD, dividing the article into sections was viewed as an improvement;  but as I see it, it increases the requirement for verification:  we would need to be able to verify not only that something belongs on this page, but that it meets the criteria of a particular section of the page.  Such well-specified verification is unlikely to be found.  A limited number of good examples (not an unlimited number, not "any good examples" as John Vandenberg says) can be included in the Oxymoron article for illustrative purposes, and that will provide most of the value of this page -- the huge number of examples is not needed for either encyclopedic or entertainment value.  Sorry.  Clarification:  Don't merge back, per Fut.Perf.; All the same problems would exist if a list were included at that page.  Examples at that page should be included within paragraphs. --Coppertwig (talk) 13:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete. WP:OR, and maybe WP:SNOW would help out now.  Malinaccier (talk) 16:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete in Keeping with wikipedia principles, per above. Mandsford (talk) 04:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and improve. If I see the potential of an article being good, then if we delete it, who's going to improve it?  All Wikipedia articles are in the process of becoming good, which everyone knows, so it isn't a problem and shouldn't be an embarrassment.  The fact that I'm the first "Keep" makes me suspect this is a stealth delete and that the potential supporters haven't been notified, which is rude and nasty. Korky Day (talk) 23:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Please assume good faith. I think normally notification is done by placing the AfD tag on the article.  I did an extra dummy edit so it would be clear in the edit summary that the page is being considered for deletion.  In response to your vote, I've placed a notice at Talk:Oxymoron about this proposed deletion.  Is there anyone else who ought to be notified, and if so, who? --Coppertwig (talk) 23:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Nothing more than a list of perceived oxymora, sometimes for possible comic effect or to make a point. As it stands, 'tis indeed rife with WP:OR and WP:POV violations, and additions done to tweak the noses of certain sectors of the populace (Compassionate conservative, military intelligence, Christian Science, etc) to me reek of WP:POINT. That being said, I do not find the article itself unencyclopedic per se, altho' in its current condition it's definitely indiscriminate. Oh, and to the user who sicced the BJBot on me to inform me of the AfD on this article I once contributed to: Thank you; most considerate. -- Sig Pig  |SEND - OVER 08:47, 8 January 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.