Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tip of the day (2nd nomination)


 * 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 delete.  Sandstein  16:59, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Tip of the day
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable, does not pass WP:GNG, as a concept: no reliable non-primary sources discuss the concept. Fails WP:NEO: all sources provided use the phrase, they don't mention it. See: Use–mention distinction. The keep voters from the last discussion didn't provide any reliable sources. w umbolo  ^^^  11:56, 8 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep – using google, you can find tip of the day web features on many subjects. I even ran into one on meditation. Tip of the day features also abound in software programs.  There are thousands of tip of the day features out there, some within programs that have millions of users.      &mdash; The Transhumanist      14:06, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * you provided an immediate reference to that website. Do you have a reliable reference for the fact that there are thousands of tip of the day features? w umbolo   ^^^  14:19, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * On google, "tip of the day" gets 14.6 million results (in comparison, "ski lift" returns 5.77 million results). I have yet to find a page about tip of the day features in general or about programmers including such a feature in a software's design, amongst the thousands of tip of the day features that come up. That is, in search results, any coverage there might be about them is obscured by links to the features themselves. They are a widespread element of modern information society. I don't think it serves our readers well to require our editors to play blind and pretend they don't exist. See WP:IAR. We should retain the article while the search for references continues.      &mdash; The Transhumanist      21:53, 8 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Status report: I've asked for help in the hunt for references over at the Reference Desk. Here's the link: Reference desk/Computing.     &mdash; The Transhumanist      06:16, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Google hits are not a valid keep argument. w umbolo   ^^^  06:46, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I didn't present it as an argument, but to provide perspective in the description of the problem encountered hunting for references: the 14.6 million search results suggest a likelihood of the existence of references, and therefore may help in deciding whether or not it is worthwhile to conduct a search. I think it is. I followed it with the suggestion that we hold off from deletion while the search continues, and I'm still waiting for your response on that. I see this discussion as a collaboration to fix a problem.  To solve that problem, I believe we should focus on fixing the article, by searching for references. And toward that end, to make this more fun, I have a challenge for you: Can you find one before I do?  I doubt it. ;) Whoever finds one first gets a Rescue Barnstar from the other (assuming the reference leads to keeping the article). Do you accept the challenge?       &mdash; The Transhumanist      07:44, 9 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete per nomination. It's an article of practically circular notability, if any. The logic probably goes: A subject is a well trodden expression in common language - so it must have its own Wikipedia entry. Well, Wikipedia is neither a dictionary, nor a depository of expressions. (Note: The article is not about Wikipedia's Tip of the Day. OK, don't have me giving you ideas.) -The Gnome (talk) 11:10, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete--Per nom and Gnome. ~ Winged Blades Godric 03:50, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep, a useful article that is well referenced, the last AfD was a conclusive keep 6 months ago, nothing changed in my opinion. Szzuk (talk) 13:15, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. I disagree with Szzuk that the article is well referenced.  It certainly has a lot of references, but they're almost all just examples of use.  I don't see any WP:RS that discuss this as a concept.  The closest I see is the Stack Overflow page, but Stack Overflow, being user-contributed content, is not a WP:RS.  It's certainly a highly respected and valuable resource for programming knowledge, but doesn't meet our definition of a WP:RS because it lacks editorial control.  -- RoySmith (talk) 13:45, 16 April 2018 (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.