Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Straphanger

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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-18 08:37Z

[edit] Straphanger

Straphanger (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

previously tagged as a candidate for deletion for unencyclopedic content; I feel this is a decently reasonable article for inclusion but before removing that tag I though I would bring it to wider discussion. There has been some discussion already on its talk page. I feel this is a keep, but in need of cleanup Cornell Rockey 15:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep, the nominator themselves believes it should be kept.... !! I suggest withdrawing the nomination and then you can close it yourself if there are only keep votes. Mathmo ^Talk 16:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I first heard this term in the context of the Straphangers Campaign, a group that advocates the improvement of the NYC Subway system, which is mentioned in this article. --Eastmain 19:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I see the nom has opted for "keep", but I'd be more than happy to step into the shoes of the nominator and nominate it myself. This article is essentially a dicdef, a slang term for commuter. The balance of the article is clearly a dicdef, given the heading "other definitions". The alternatives to deletion are to redirect to commuting or to transwiki into the wiktionary. Agent 86 19:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep or transwiki. Looks like a classic dicdef. If it can be expanded beyond that, keep. --- RockMFR 20:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - The fact that there is a film by the same name already demonstrates that this is not just a dicdef. It does, however, need to be improved and expanded. -- Black Falcon 01:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment If the film is a topic worthy of an encyclopedia entry, then we can have an article on the film. However, just because a movie has the same title as a word in the dictionary doesn't make that word worthy of an encyclopedia article. Looking at the IMDB entry for this movie, there is no indication of what it is about, how the term is used, or the context in which the title applies. If the "Straphangers Campaign" is encyclopedic, we can have an article on the "Straphangers Campaign" (and we do). There are movies, companies, charities, etc., with the word "united" in their title, but we don't have or need an article on the dicdef "united" ("united", by the way, is simply a disambig page, no article or definition). Agent 86 02:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
• This Straphanger says keep. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 12:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, given that there was even a film created by the same name. (jarbarf) 20:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, this is a glorified dicdef. Showing that word has been used many places just proves it's a real word, not that it's anything more than a dictionary definition. Vicarious 00:12, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep A real and encyclopedic topic. More important in places with crowded subway trains like New York. --Oakshade 04:47, 18 February 2007 (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.