Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Name-dropping


 * 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) Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:26, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Name-dropping

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

Dictionary definition, permanent stub, no sources since 9/07. Either delete or transwiki. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 17:40, 21 August 2009 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Transwiki to Wiktionary. I was talking the other day to Jimbo Wales and he said, "Mandsford, why don't people ever look at Wiktionary or Wikinews?", and I told him, "I'll tell you what I told Stephen Harper.  The sidebar just doesn't have easy links to those things."  Mandsford (talk) 19:23, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Transwiki. can't add anything to Mandsford's genial comment. McMarcoP (talk) 08:48, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep — The article describes (and is intended to describe) a concept, not a definition. Furthermore, "permanent stub" isn't any sort of a problem, let alone a reason to cite that an article should be deleted ( please see WP:STUB ). The lack of sources is a significant problem, but is one that can be and should be rectified by adding sources, not by deleting the page. It takes some research, which often involves actually getting off the computer, but just because it's actually a little bit of work shouldn't be a reason to just give up. — V = I * R  (talk to Ω) 01:22, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Crazily notable topic. Bear in mind that it was a persistent target for vandalism for 18 months, which put a damper on it getting improved. Fences  &amp;  Windows  02:47, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. There must be plenty to say about this subject from both the scholarly and popular media. I've added a little of each to the article but I'm sure there's much more to be found by editors more expert in this sort of subject. Failure to expand beyond a dicdef is only a reason to transwiki when no expansion would be reasonable; I don't think that's the case here. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:02, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks. It used to be longer, but got gutted after the vandalism. I never got around to rebuilding it using sources. Fences  &amp;  Windows  03:08, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep – There's no particular reason I can see that this would be a "permanent stub". Plenty of books cover the topic of name-dropping. (For example.) Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 22:32, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Coverage is significantly more than a mere WP:DICDEF. --Cyber cobra (talk) 05:50, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep There is more content and potential for growth than you'd find in a dictionary. Also, to Mandsford comment, people use Webster or another free dictionary when they want to look something up, since its more reliable and complete.  I've kept http://www.m-w.com/ bookmarked on my toolbar, for years now, long before Wikipedia existed.   D r e a m Focus  03:23, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Well referenced and very analytical article. TomCat4680 (talk) 10:20, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 19:49, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:HAMMER. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:39, 31 August 2009 (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.