Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Westie (person)


 * 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, (non-admin closure), consensus is to keep Fr33kman talk  APW 21:57, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Westie (person)

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

This article lacks any sources what so ever and seems to be more of a lengthy dictionary entry rather than a useful encyclopedia entry

Wikipedia is not a dictionary Yet this article has a thorough, albeit unsourced definition of the term

Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought

Wikipedia is not a soapbox

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information

124.184.251.254 (talk) 12:56, 6 September 2008 (UTC) Text copied from article's talk page. ➨ ❝ ЯEDVERS ❞ has nothing to declare except his jeans 14:13, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Much of the article is sourced, and the "unsourced" definition in the intro is sourced by bits lower in the article. Our articles need to have definitions (we won't know what they're about otherwise!); the point of not-a-dictionary is that our articles must have more than definitions.  This article isn't original research, and it need not be a soapbox or indiscriminate, which I don't believe it is anyway.  Good faith effort by the IP nominator, but I believe s/he misunderstands what these policies mean.  By the way, at a time when this article was entitled Westies (people), it was kept at AFD.  Nyttend (talk) 14:24, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.   —Grahame (talk) 14:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - Notable topic, as attested by some of the sources listed. Yes, wp is not a dictionary; but article do need to define what the subject is. Any original thought in the article should be removed or tagged (, , etc. . There is nothing indiscriminate about the info in the article, it is all about the term "Westie" and the associations with that title. Characters in science fiction movies who are named for U.S. politicians would be an indiscriminate list... Good faith nomination, but this article simply needs some work. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 16:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per Mdssummermsw. JRG (talk) 02:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, not just not a dicdef, but an interesting social phenomenon that is certainly notable and encyclopædic. Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC).
 * Keep. Agree that it is a social phenomenon. It is the subject of scholarly research. ShipFan (talk) 16:05, 11 September 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.