Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moving (address)


 * 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   no consensus, default to keep. Although the arguments that the article should be deleted based on the overwhelming presence of original research are persuasive, so too are the arguments that the topic is sufficiently defined and notable enough as a concept to warrant its own article. Toss in the rough split between commenters, and it seems there is no firm consensus one way or the other. -- jonny - m t  04:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Moving (address)

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

When you remove the list of reasons for moving, which is textbook original research, you are only left with a dictionary definition. I can only see this article as serving as a generic See also placeholder to more specific and factual topics such as for example estate agent, moving company etc. MickMacNee (talk) 16:42, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: fixed. lifebaka (talk - contribs) 16:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep: Not just a Dicdef. Is referenced in that it is found on the Holmes and Rahe stress scale. This alone goes beyond a dicdef. (Even if the link found here falls short of WP:RS, the Holmes and Rahe scale is found in many locations that do meet the criteria, I just could not locate one myself). I could not find a reference for other information in here, so I marked it as a stub. Being a stub or short article is not grounds for deletion, per WP:DEMOLISH.
 * I was of course was not suggesting that moving house doesn't exist as a concept, so I don't see what relevance 'souring' it has. You can source the existence of any and every dictionary definition, that is what makes it a dictionary definition. MickMacNee (talk) 19:04, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Apologies to anyone who has worked on this article, but as it stands it's absolute rubbish. There have been several guides to moving house published, but the encyclopedic stuff should already be covered in articles about conveyancing and surveying. I don't see the potential for a useful article here.--Michig (talk) 21:20, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable event, although a rename (I really don't know but "address" just doesn't sound right) and a major original research removal is needed.-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 00:26, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Rename I agree with the above. The so-called original research need not be removed but rather sourced. It sounds accurate to me, and I'm sure it could be found somewhere. Sebwite (talk) 01:02, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. If there are no good ideas for a rename, it should be atleast be renamed: Move (address). There's no reason for it to be in verb form. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 01:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I wish that Moving by itself could be the title of this article, and all other uses be listed under Moving (disambiguation). But I cannot make that change myself. Tatterfly (talk) 18:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete I concur. Without the OR in the article, you are reduced to nothing more than a dictionary definition. The title is always awkward and unsuitable. Trusilver  22:12, 4 August 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.