Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Bunyan Trophy

Paul Bunyan Trophy was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was Keep

Paul Bunyan Trophy
Lacks context. Apparently a trophy in some sport, but what sport? Notable? Provisional delete vote unless somebody can explain. &mdash; Gwalla | Talk 04:49, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC) It says what sport - football. Just because an article doesn't have content doesn't mean it should get deleted, otherwise all of Wikipedia's stubs would be gone in a flash. No support for delete Enochlau 05:22, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC) This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
 * Keep, obviously - "Basic Fact-checking 101" - First, check "What links here". Second, ask the previous editors. Third, Google. Fourth, and most importantly, stop trying to delete articles 4 minutes after they are posted so that people have a chance to work on them.  If every article had to stand on its own based on it's first version, we'd only ever get a few good articles through.  -- Netoholic @ 05:42, 2004 Nov 3 (UTC)
 * The other side of that coin is that if people would wait four minutes to write one decent paragraph before creating an article, they wouldn't be so apt to get listed on VfD. Posting something like the first version of this article is like walking out the front door naked, and then complaining that people didn't even give you a chance to get dressed. Maybe the neighbors shouldn't be so quick to call the cops, but if someone doesn't want that hassle it's pretty easy just to throw on a bathrobe first. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 20:58, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I don't think it is that big of an issue to have a inadequate article for a couple of minutes. Just today, I accidentally hit save when creating an article on Thomas Charles Power.  When I hit save, I didn't panic, and I wasn't embarrased.  It was easy to fix, but it did take me a few minutes.  I just kept on editing the article to get the content I wanted in it.  I am not saying it is that it is a great article, but I sure would have been very discouraged to see it as an article for deletion.  -- JamesTeterenko 06:14, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * To be more precise, only delete young articles based on the topic of the article, not the content. It's ok for articles on encyclopedic topics to start small and grow to be great. For articles on nonencyclopedic topics, be ruthless, delete as early as possible to avoid wasted effort and precedent. --Improv 20:45, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. There is nothing wrong with this article that can't be fixed with a look over from someone knowledgeable. - Vague Rant 05:55, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, perfectly good stub article. Shane King 06:20, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Legitimate article. If it's incomplete we should collaborate to get it fixed. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 10:52, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, even though it is a bit dumb, in the context of a U.Michigan vs Michigan.S.U. contest, to declare that Michigan was the winner. Doh! --Tagishsimon
 * Keep. [[en:RaD Man|RaD Man (talk)]] 21:22, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Changing my vote to keep. The article was a substub without context when I listed it, and did not say what sport it was for, but has since been filled out.   &mdash; Gwalla | Talk 01:23, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. -- JamesTeterenko 06:06, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. The topic is useful enough. --*drew 07:56, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. I just want to reiterate Netaholic's point: "stop trying to delete articles 4 minutes after they are posted so that people have a chance to work on them" Although I wish people would take the time to flesh out articles they obviously care enough about to create, there's nothing wrong with stubs. - Lifefeed 15:50, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep this particular article, but I disagree with the foregoing general admonition from Lifefeed (who agreed with a frequent theme of Netoholic). The simple, practical fact is that many people patrol RC or otherwise check out newly created articles.  It's an efficient way to find rubbish.  Editors have long done this, are doing it now, and will probably continue to do it.  Therefore, if you create a first draft of an article, a draft that's still so rudimentary that it fails to establish the subject's notability or otherwise meets VfD criteria, then save it on your hard drive instead of on Wikipedia.  Post it when it will withstand VfD.  That will save everyone a lot of time. JamesMLane 07:27, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * James, thats a really nice thought and a great thing to say here, but how do you propose to let anonymous new contributors, like User:68.166.134.222 who posted this, know about your criteria for submission? It's not me or Lifefeed that posted this, after all. I tell you what, it takes just as long to make a bad submission into a passable stub as it does to post the VFD. It also avoids the colossal waste of editorial time that this vote has generated. -- Netoholic @ 00:09, 2004 Nov 9 (UTC)
 * I've done that on occasion. Like most active editors, though, my to-do list could keep me busy for the next several months.  I'm not inclined to give priority to researching some other topic just because a Michigan fan got all pumped about the Wolverines' win and felt like dashing off a couple of sentences about the game.  If a new anon editor is sticking around at all, then he or she will presumably see the VfD comments and get a much better idea of how to write articles (or even stubs). JamesMLane 20:35, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * K Like the Oxbridge 'Varsity Match' but a point or two down the notability scale, but still worth keeping as it is now. Last paragraph could do with a rewrite though. Chris 16:37, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep it! That game was awesome, and, as a new U of M student, I am excited to learn more about the rivalry with MSU.  Basic facts, good quick reference.
 * Keep! If this should be deleted, then all wikipedia's articles on trophies should be deleted too. BTW, it's fun seeing state's ass being kicked every year by us. __earth 01:39, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)