Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Second Superpower
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 keep. Mailer Diablo 01:11, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Second Superpower
This page looks like complete junk. It is filled with redlinks. It has citiations and quotes in non-sensical places. After reading it I'm not even sure what it's about. Delete as Decief Tobyk777 06:00, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete- Incomprehensible. Looks like Original Research and POV. Reyk 06:25, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment, doesn't seem to be original research as the article is well-referenced with noteworthy sources that seem to use the term, such as Green Peace --TBC
??? ??? ??? 07:08, 21 March 2006 (UTC) - Delete. Just quotes some sources that used the term. The subject might be worth an article (it depends on whether the term actual has a specific meaning or has either been thought up by various people independently or no meaning beyond the literal one), but this would at best be a source for it, not something to base it on. - Andre Engels 09:04, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- Weak keep 142k google hits and has references. Also note the page has been around since April 2003 -- Astrokey44|talk 10:15, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- keep probably deserves a chance, and could defiantely help epole who heard the term and want to find out what it is.Dolive21 11:27, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep and cleanup - verifiable by a Google search, but the article needs a lot of work. Strong keep per Calkin's rewrite Robin Johnson 12:27,21 March 2006 (UTC)- Keep per Kalkin's rewrite. Thanks, magical fairies! :-) Robin Johnson 09:24, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep rewrite.
Keep and clean up. Admittedly needs some TLC, but could conceivably become a good article.Brisvegas 12:30, 21 March 2006 (UTC) - Keep and cleanup. --Terence Ong 13:33, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep and cleanup. --Siva1979Talk to me 14:19, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep and cleanup. StarTrek 16:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- Are all those saying "keep and cleanup" planning to do the cleanup themselves? How are we going to know that the work will be done after the article is kept. Wikipedia is maintained and improved by users, not magical faeries, and saying "Keep, I hope the magical faeries fix the article at an undisclosed point in the future" just seems silly from where I'm standing. -- Saberwyn 21:02, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
- Well, this doesn't make me any more inclined to do it myself, but Wikipedia has some brilliant users and yes, I expect someone will. (Perhaps they're waiting to see the outcome of the VfD first.) No one is saying it will be fixed by magical fairies, please don't be silly. Robin Johnson 23:56, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
- You do have to admit "keep per this rewrite" is a much better argument to keep than "keep and hope someone else will come and fix it". -- Saberwyn 11:23, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
- I don't understand you. Neither of those is an argument, they're both suggestions you might make. If the problem is that the article is badly written, but you do believe that an article on this subject should be there, I do think that keeping it for editors to improve is a better idea than deleting it. Robin Johnson 12:58, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
- Forget I said anything. -- Saberwyn 20:35, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
- I don't understand you. Neither of those is an argument, they're both suggestions you might make. If the problem is that the article is badly written, but you do believe that an article on this subject should be there, I do think that keeping it for editors to improve is a better idea than deleting it. Robin Johnson 12:58, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
- You do have to admit "keep per this rewrite" is a much better argument to keep than "keep and hope someone else will come and fix it". -- Saberwyn 11:23, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep as per my rewrite. Still could use work, of course. Kalkin 18:49, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
- Hallelujah! Keep Kalkin's rewrite as a vastly improved form of the article, and a far better launching pad for later expansion than the article was at nomination. -- Saberwyn 20:35, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
- Well, this doesn't make me any more inclined to do it myself, but Wikipedia has some brilliant users and yes, I expect someone will. (Perhaps they're waiting to see the outcome of the VfD first.) No one is saying it will be fixed by magical fairies, please don't be silly. Robin Johnson 23:56, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
- Are all those saying "keep and cleanup" planning to do the cleanup themselves? How are we going to know that the work will be done after the article is kept. Wikipedia is maintained and improved by users, not magical faeries, and saying "Keep, I hope the magical faeries fix the article at an undisclosed point in the future" just seems silly from where I'm standing. -- Saberwyn 21:02, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep as per above. The Disco King 17:11, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep as above, but rename to Second superpower. ProhibitOnions 20:25, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- Just to be pedantic, I think it is a proper noun, so should be kept as Second Superpower. Robin Johnson 00:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep as ProhibitOnions. Oliver Keenan 20:37, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Per above. Cnwb 22:24, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as neologism. Peter Grey 06:43, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Widely used, 152k google hits. MMZach 06:16, 25 March 2006 (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.
