Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Obscure does not mean not notable

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was Keep. (NAC) Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0  23:55, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Obscure does not mean not notable


This essay is muddled. It would require a fundamental rewrite to explain the argument in the nutshell clearly and concisely, and currently describes choices on notability and language in a way not entirely consistent with guidelines. While minority viewpoints are acceptable in essays, I worry potential editors might take advice from this essay before reading WP:MOS and WP:TECHNICAL. I read the essay first after finding a link at WP:SPEEDY, and it would be entirely possible to link to it from anywhere in Wikipedia. G. C. Hood (talk) 03:07, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep I'm not sure what MOS and TECHNICAL have to do with notability. It is your argument that I find muddled, the essay seems to represent a fairly uncontroversial detail, that obscure subjects are not necessarily non-notable. Gigs (talk) 05:20, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Legitimate essay, marked as such. Many, indeed, are "muddled" but "muddled" is not listed as a normal grounds for deletion. Collect (talk) 13:28, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's an essay representing an opinion that's not particularly objectionable. It may need to be cleaned up, to better express the argument, but that isn't grounds for deletion.--SGCM (talk)  19:13, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - valid essay that can be pointed to to explain at, for instance an AFD of some former Mongolian Treasury Secretary, that just because Mongolian Currency Policy has no effect on editors from Akron, OH that doesn't mean that it's not fit for encyclopedic inclusion. Achowat (talk) 14:01, 26 July 2012 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.