Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rumor

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. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 08:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rumor

Delete - dicdef Mais oui! 06:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep very notable, talks about roles in literature etc.- more than just a dictionary definition. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 06:17, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep It needs more information, but it is worthwhile. --Dakart 07:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Dakart. Kalani ^[talk] 07:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, the article isn't very good... but, think of the possibilities... the use of the internet and the spread of rumors? History, etc... gren グレン 09:11, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Article needs work but there is more on the subject than simply definition. michaelCurtis ^talk+_{contributions} 09:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Delete - dicdef. More definitions doesn't make it an encyclopedia entry, or change that it belongs in a dictionary. Tychocat 13:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• Strong keep. The concept of rumors is absolutely a valid subject for an encyclopedia; the fact that right now the article is not in a very good point is no reason to delete the article itself. -- Captain Disdain 15:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • ...er, good shape, even. -- Captain Disdain 15:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Needs improvement, but definitely worth keeping. - CNichols 15:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep with expansion. Xyrael ^T 16:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete So it is the subject of literature, but so what? It is not nearly as notable as some other themes of lit, such as Death or the Afterlife or a bildungsroman etc. The fact is, anyone can make literature out of any theme, and merely the fact that something has a rumor in it does not make it notable. This is a dicdef that is not nearly as notable as a real literary technique. Hobbeslover ^{talk/contribs} 17:30, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The point is that, especially in Roman and Greek literature, Rumour is personified as a god like being (for example, read the Aeneid). I agree if it were simply on the theme of rumour the article would not be notable. michaelCurtis ^talk+_{contributions} 22:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Seriously, I'd say the literature angle is actually of secondary importance -- rumors are a pretty important concept, and to not have an article about it simply makes no sense -- I mean, see gossip, for an example of what I mean. (Gossiping often happens by repetation of rumors, but it's not quite the same thing -- still, it's a comparable phenomenon.) I just expanded the article a little in that direction. -- Captain Disdain 23:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• obvious keepper duhAdambiswanger1 22:42, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep A very notable subject, with many pages of text to be written about different rumors, their spawning and spreading, their role, and so on. CP/M 22:58, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep--999 02:21, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect misspelling to Rumour. Clearly a typo. -- GWO
  • Erm, yes, I agree, in principle, but that *was* a joke, right? Anyways, I just took off the transwiki tag. The dicdef part of that article is already on Wikt as wikt:rumor. TheProject 19:10, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep — Article can be much more than a dict.-def. It discusses psychology of term, &c. — RJH (talk) 20:18, 2 June 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.