Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tough guy


 * 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 of the debate was Delete Jtkiefer T  23:26, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Tough guy
I do not understand what this article is about, why it belongs to the section "Endurance sports" or "Literary stubs" as I find nothing literary about it. Manik Raina 14:05, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment This article covers three separate things, so should be three articles and a disambig page. The stock character part is worth keeping (and expanding), the endurance event and internet slang sections refer to separate things, and should not be on this page - neither is important enough for a separate article, IMHO. Squiddy 16:35, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

While I fail to see the sense of the "Literary" stub (but somebody may- let him speak up now), I see no reason to dump any of the content, not even the literary slang I never heard about- one should never move to eliminate something because it fails to appeal to you, nor even if ou think must readers wouldn't care or it- an encyclopaedia is not meant to be readable 'from cover to cover' but as its etymology suggests to cover as much ground as reasonably possible (and our medium has the crucial advantage that it is not limited by the size and costs of every hard copy, unlike printed lexica). In the case of the competition, the very facts that an event sui generis persists for years and is made to subject of a lenghty foreign TV program indicate there clearly are people that can be interested in it. As I agree neither section is large enough to need a separate page (nor the whole page too long to read trough quickly), I wouldn't argue (yet?) for disambiguation either Fastifex 10:50, 19 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete : Unverifiable, not noteworthy. Wikipedia is no dictionary either. Bloom 42 16:32, 19 November 2005 (UTC)


 * 'Speedy delete as per Bloom Ajax11 16:35, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete &#8766; The article smells like a front that exists merely to provide a backhanded introduction to the Charlie Wenzel attack page. → Ξxtreme Unction {yak ł blah } 12:54, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
 * The last paragraph is a gem "Example: Charlie Wenzel received much notoriety in 2005 for a dispute on an internet message board. This dispute became so well publicized it spawned several websites, a wikipedia entry, t-shirts and several slang terms". Manik Raina 16:44, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

As nobody seems to find any sense in the 'literary' stub, and lack of animo for significant elaboration requires no sturring, I simply removed the mystery stub. However I read absolutely nothing that compells removing either of these items- if people delete anything they can't be bothered with, me demote Wikipedia from an alternative alongside professional encyclopaedias, abdicating the extras without a hope ever to approach the qualitative quasi-guarantee of a scientificaly edited one. Our time is far better spend contributing content, not bitching about every little bit that wouldn't make Britannica, which happily already exists (how absurd most articles from its free 1911 edition are still not being used, that alone would be superior occupational therapy for years!) Arcarius 18:06, 23 November 2005 (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.