Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soda jerk


 * 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 no other delete votes, article was substantially improved and nom indicated improvement. TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 13:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Soda jerk

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

All right, this article has been around for four years now. . Time to go.  BradV  21:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * For those of you who are voting keep simply because there is no reason listed, this is what the article looked like when I nominated it. It was nothing but a dictionary entry, and there wasn't a source provided or any substantial improvements made to the article in 4 years. It was a pretty obvious delete when I nominated it, but a few editors have made substantial improvements and found sources for this since then. (I still can't believe it!)  BradV  04:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you wish to withdraw the nomination then? --T-dot ( Talk/ contribs ) 17:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. UE unreferenced nn dicdef. --Rory096 21:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Concerns seem to be taken care of. --Rory096 00:21, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. I don't see any explanation as to why it should be deleted, and I'm confused as to why BradV is saying it's unreferenced.  It works for me.   Corvus cornix  talk  23:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is a legitimate term of historical and cultural importance. Why was this even nominated. An article "being around for a while now" is not generally considered criteria for deletion. It's not a neologism, as a quick Google search will attest. eaolson (talk) 23:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, nominator has given no reason for deletion apart from I don't like it. Keep per Wikipedia has no deadline.   Esradekan Gibb    "Talk" 00:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Besides the fact that I'm not seeing a deletion reason from the nom, this is a well written, well referenced article that shows notability. Lots of hits in google scholar, if we need even more refs.-- Fabrictramp |  talk to me  00:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, cleaned up nicely after the AFD.--SeizureDog (talk) 00:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep I'm sure that there are long-time articles on 8-Track, Shinola, Model T, and other obsolete icons of history, but that does not mean that they should be deleted. The Soda jerk was a very important part of American culture. Besides, I checked, the article on the Earth has been around for almost seven years. I think it's time for that one to go. Eauhomme (talk) 00:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * keep article is of notable historical valueMyheartinchile (talk) 01:31, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, what? Are you saying the article should be kept because the article itself is of notable historical value? --Rory096 01:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * NO of course not, i meant the article's subject, dork =P —Preceding unsigned comment added by Myheartinchile (talk • contribs) 08:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * obvious keep. well referenced, important, and historical subject. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 01:41, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - If it wasn't in shape at the beginning of the AfD discussion, it certainly is now. ◄   Zahakiel   ►  03:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep nothing resembling a rationale has been given. JuJube (talk) 04:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I can understand the frustration of the nom with the way some people have expressed their "votes". I can also understand the "voters" saying that a rationale wasn't given. Perhaps we can all learn something here. Either way as the article stands now it's a keep. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Pretty obvious keep after the work that's been done on the article since the AfD, but I think it was a keep before.  An article should only be deleted if the topic is not notable or if the topic is notable but there's nothing currently in the article that can be salvaged for a decent version.  The topic clearly is notable, and the article, while needing a lot of work, was of adequate quality for a stub.  The fact that no one has improved it for a while doesn't seem particularly relevant (as others have pointed out, wiipedia has no deadline). Klausness (talk) 11:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. I don't see anything inherently "wrong" with this article which makes it worthy of deletion.  Improve - yes.  Delete - No.  --T-dot ( Talk/ contribs ) 17:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Strong Keep The only thing the nom gives for a reason to delete is because nothing has been added for four years. Wikipedia has no deadline or time limit. Is notable and has reliable sources. I would like to see some improvements here and there, but otherwise, I see no reason to delete. Doc StrangeMailbox Logbook 17:24, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Uhh - Doc - Did you mean keep? --T-dot ( Talk/ contribs ) 20:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes I did, silly me. Sorry, my mind wanders. Doc StrangeMailbox Logbook 13:15, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep per all the keep arguements, they already said everything for me. DA PIE EATER (talk) 20:59, 12 June 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.