Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Table topic


 * 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. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:16, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Table topic

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

Dictionary term of no specific notability Alvestrand (talk) 06:22, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Article has been PRODed twice, and PROD contested. --Alvestrand (talk) 06:24, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, no evidence of real significance, let alone notability. If this were a person, it would qualify for speedy.  Nyttend (talk) 12:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - this is a unique and notable concept, mentioned in over 800 news stories - and that is limiting it to stories that specifically mention Toastmasters to avoid most false positives. It is also covered in 80+ books.  In depth coverage is found here, here completely unrelated to Toastmasters, in this book unrelated to Toastmasters which doesn't have a free preview, here, here, here, here, and many, many other places.
 * Incidentally this is exactly why speedy delete doesn't apply to concepts - you can't judge a concepts notability just by reading an article attempt and guessing. --ThaddeusB (talk) 13:39, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If these are references, and not just articles that happen to use the word, add them to the article. As it stands, it's totally unreferenced. Toastmasters may be notable, but the fact that they use the term "table topic" doesn't automatically make the word notable. --Alvestrand (talk) 18:17, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * We don't judge articles solely by their current state and there is no deadline for improvement. As it happens, I am currently busy improving Wikipedia in other ways, but you yourself are welcome to source the article if it bothers you. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, you might want to work on this article first while it still exists, because there is a five-day deadline on this AfD. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 03:41, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I went through the list of references given on the talk page. I'm not impressed. --Alvestrand (talk) 06:45, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 19:17, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, but rewrite - it's not in wiki language, needs to be tidied up a bit, but yes, the Article is highly relevant and could do with some expanding perhaps. Tris2000 (talk) 15:41, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. The term or concept is not notable on its own, and rarely has any use outside of Toastmasters. Perhaps it deserves a section in that article, but nothing more. (I originally put a prod on this article.) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 03:41, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Merge to Toastmasters - this seems to be pretty much specifically a Toastmasters topic, it would make sense to be in there. I don't see it standing on its own. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:30, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * What about the sources listed above that talk about the same concept completely outside Toastmasters? --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:29, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Which ones treat it as anything other than two dictionary words? see analysis at Talk:Table topic. --Alvestrand (talk) 06:24, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Um, all of the ones I highlighted. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:13, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you comment on my commentary on the talk page, then? I didn't find any usage (outside of the special case of the Toastmasters) that used it in such a way. --Alvestrand (talk) 17:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * First I moved your comment to the AfD's talk page since it is better here than the article's talk page. Now, I'm not going to argue the point much further as this is clearly just a difference of opinion.  For example, you argue this page of discussion in a book is not "significant coverage".  I say it is and others can decide for themselves. I will say, however, that it is clearly talking about the same concept as our article and is not merely a collection of "two dictionary words" that happen to appear next to each other. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:33, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The topic is evidently notable. The nomination displays no understanding of our policy regarding dictionary entries.  This is a topic, not an article about a particular word.  Colonel Warden (talk) 13:14, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Quoting WP:DICTDEF: "Wikipedia: a person, or a people, a concept, a place, an event, a thing etc. that their title can denote. Wiktionary: the actual words or idioms in their title and all the things it can denote." I think this one is a dictionary term by this definition.
 * Anyway, if it's a term, I claim it shouldn't be on Wikipedia. If it's a topic, I claim it's not notable. --Alvestrand (talk) 15:40, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - per importance via Toastmasters. --AStanhope (talk) 03:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Tosatmasters does not in any way confer notability on this phrase. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 04:57, 14 September 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.