Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Box

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. As stated in the debate, WP:WINAD only applies to articles consisting solely of dictionary definitions. theProject 06:08, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Box

Box (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, which means that it doesn't have articles on nouns unless there is something notable about them. The difficulty this article has in even defining what a box is, never mind trying to come up with some sort of history for a concept that has always been with us throughout history, just demonstrates the reason such prohibitions are in place. There are already numerous box-related articles: just take a look at Box (disambiguation). What isn't needed is an automatically redundant article that can never be more than a dictionary definition Vizjim 08:50, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - WP:WINAD can only be used to delete or transwiki dictionary definitions or lists of dictionary definitions. This one is neither. Yes, it needs some serious work, but this problem doesn't require deletion. MER-C 08:54, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

• As far as I can see, the article consists exactly of a circular and not terribly good definition, followed by a list of definitions of types of boxes, most of which already have their own articles. I'm not suggesting transiki as the content is so weak: this page would be better used as a redirect to Box (disambiguation). Vizjim 08:58, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep There has been serious changes in the usages and types of boxes throughout history. Just because Wikipedia is seriously weak on large summary articles doesn't mean we should delete them in favor of lists of articles.--Prosfilaes 10:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

• Seriously, can you name one change in the use of boxes throughout the whole of history? From "thing you keep things in" to...? Types of boxes could be covered in dedicated articles. Vizjim 10:55, 23 November 2006 (UTC)]]

• Keep what things in? You could dismiss a lot of articles this way, but I think automobile and airplane and computer and planet and wheel and box all deserve summary articles that describe their origins (some cultures don't have boxes as we know them) and group the variations so you can find a subarticle without knowing exactly what you're looking for. Lists of Wikipedia articles do not make up for good overall articles; people looking for information about computers should not be faced with a list "Altair, Apple I, Apple IIe, ...) and be forced to figure out what they need from that.--Prosfilaes 12:04, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

• But why would they need to figure out what the word "box" means? If someone were to come up with a history of the box, the evolution of the box, the social impact of the box (you know, all the stuff in the other articles you mention) then this would be a valid article. I'd add 'em if I could find 'em but there's nothing around that I can see. This remains a dictionary definition and nothing more. Vizjim 12:35, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

• Ah, then it's not true that it's "an automatically redundant article that can never be more than a dictionary definition". If it's merely a mediocre article, I don't see any reason to delete it.--Prosfilaes 13:03, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

• What I'm saying is that these improvements would not be possible without original research (just check through these [1] [2] [3] [4]), therefore given the article cannot and will not ever improve beyond its current (dire rather than mediocre) state. Vizjim 13:07, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

• Um, ever heard of a library?--Prosfilaes 15:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, why? Have you found a book about the history of boxes there? I've checked the British Library catalogue and found nothing, but the search URL won't save. Vizjim 16:53, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Sounds like someone needs to take a trip to the box factory. ^_^ Danny Lilithborne 11:54, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Danny's a box! Damn you, a box! riana_dzasta 14:02, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, oh wow, I was actually reading this article a few weeks ago just to see what it might be like. Reasonable little article, nothing about it suggests it needs to go. I'm removing the idiotic 'trivia' section at the bottom, though. Nah, let it be for now. riana_dzasta 14:02, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I decided to be "bold", if you could call this bold, and remove it myself. --SonicChao ^talk 15:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Good, I wasn't feeling bold enough :) riana_dzasta 16:21, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. You have got to be kidding. --SonicChao ^talk 15:41, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

• I'm not, and rather than being uncivil could you not give an actual reason? Vizjim 16:58, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep and improve the article, close this debate and enclose it in a box. Newyorkbrad 16:47, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - The article is not a dictionary entry. Like many article (i.e. Carton, Machine, etc...) it presents encyclopaedic information such as types in our case. -- Szvest Ω ^{Wiki Me Up ®} 17:05, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above Will ^{(Tell me, is something eluding you, sunshine?)} 17:32, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:55, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Avala 23:20, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, this is written as an encyclopedic entry, nothing of a dicdef. Are you trying to kid me or something?? --Terence Ong _{(C | R)} 00:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep We are considering deleting box? The subject is verifiable, and boxes, being ever present in our lives, are certainly notable.-- danntm ^T _C 01:12, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per other keeps, it's box †he Bread 01:31, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Yay box! --theDemonHog 03:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
• Arrrghh. Clearly I'm alone on this one. WP:SNOW would suggest a graceful withdrawal of the nomination. Vizjim 05:56, 24 November 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.