Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Very Important Person

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) 2007-01-02 08:19Z

[edit] Very Important Person

Very Important Person (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Delete dicdef plus includes unsourced information. Could also then move Very Important Person (film) to that space. Otto4711 16:36, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Assertation that it's an Air Force acronym verified by three independent sources that do not appear to have gotten their information from each other or Wikipedia. 123. Therefore, article has viable content beyond dictionary definition. -Toptomcat 17:03, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

• Your second source is something about serial numbers on planes and the other two merely note that the USAF uses the term. Which isn't notable, since all sorts of people and organizations use the term. And the sources within the article are to a site selling Bonnie Raitt VP tickets and dictionary.com. Otto4711 23:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

• Although the Raitt source was for an event already passed, I replaced it with something less commercial, although any source by definition is going to refer to selling VIP tickets. Other sources have also been added.Simon12 01:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. I created this page in May, 2006 as I was disambiguating links to VIP, and this was the number one cause of those links. (See Talk:VIP). There are now close to 150 links to this page. If not done already, I will add the source noted above. Simon12 17:17, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

• A number of sources have now been added to improve the article.Simon12 01:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• It's still shit. Recury 02:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep I created the category, and have used the page many times. Please vote to keep category.King of Anonymity 17:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Please tell me how a category "Very Important Persons" can ever be encyclopedic. --Dhartung | Talk 20:08, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
    • This vote is on the article, not the category. Simon12 20:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep assuming that some useful sources can be added to the article; term is in widespread use. Tarinth 17:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, see WP:NOT. Recury 19:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as dicdef. --Dhartung | Talk 20:08, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. - as above. VVIP (meaning Very Very Important Person , makes sense to me. Tonytypoon 20:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as a stock phrase. A commonly used grouping of words which means exactly what it says.--Nydas^(Talk) 20:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep yes, this phrase is close to a dicdef, but given that there are so many links to it, I'd rather not move the movie into its place. So rather than leave this blank, I'd suggest keeping it. Mister.Manticore 01:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

But I would say the category itself shouldn't be kept. Mister.Manticore 01:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

The suggestion to move the movie page there is separate from the Afd nom. Perhaps I shouldn't have mentioned it. Otto4711 04:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

It's important to bring up any plans to change the page, no matter how minor. However, in this case, I wouldn't advise doing it, it would direct too many people to a page whose content isn't what they want. Mister.Manticore 12:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Don't blame the page for existing; instead blame the umpteen editors who all (independently) chose to link the phrase. Whatever happens, do not replace this page with a disambiguation page. Ewlyahoocom 04:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Capable of being encyclopedic beyond dicdef, for example can document types of "VIP treatment" (e.g. there are apparently military protocols for dealing with VIP's). Note this didn't originate in the USAF. Oxford English Dictionary says it's mostly military slang but gives a cite from 1933. 67.117.130.181 09:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable term deserving a place in an encyclopedia, but the article needs improvement.--Yannismarou 18:03, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep but rewrite per 67.117.130.181. It is notable only for its use in protocol (i.e. military and state honours and accommodation) and in certain legislation in some countries, but the *term* itself belongs on Wiktionary (and a link should be provided). Orderinchaos78 04:33, 31 December 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.