Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Debagging

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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Debagging

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

From PROD. The reason given at the PROD was "This article shows no specific encyclopedic merit. Debagging is, quite simply, not meant for a dictionary. If one were to pick up a Paper Encyclopedia, one would never find Debagging or Pantsing. In addition, part of this serves as a type of instruction manual (Debagging#Methodologies), which also has a broken link."

There was formerly a seperate article called Pantsing. Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pantsing, closed just a week ago, this was merged and made a redirect to this article (Debagging). So in a way deleting this article would be an overriding of that AfD close, which I guess is alright Herostratus 13:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Abstain as nominator, this is a procedural nom. The orginal PROD was by User:IloveMP2yea. I would say that if the article is kept it should definitely be Moved to Pantsing, as this is the common term in the USA while Debagging appears to be possibly mainly limited to Oxford. The article states that they also use "skanking", "kecking", and "kegging" in the UK. Since the UK can't seem to get its act together on a common term, "pantsing" must be by far the more used term. I think the current article name is an artifact of the AfD at Pantsing, which perhaps should have been argued as a mergefrom Debagging. Herostratus 13:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I shouldn't base your argument on the part of the article that wasn't sourced. How do you know that there isn't a common term? If it's solely from the (now removed) bottom half of this article, which was a load of unsourced rubbish, you should treat that knowledge with suspicion. Uncle G 00:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and keep at this name too. This isn't something made up in school one day but it probably happens in some school every day and the argument that it wouldn't be found in a paper encyclopedia seems to defeat the whole purpose of Wikipedia. Nick mallory 14:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep-- featured in Evelyn Waugh novels. Rhinoracer 15:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - debagging is a recognised British term. I note that the definition has been trasnwikified to the dictionary already. The latter part of the article is excessively pretentious in its use of headings. The section on methodology has little value, but a list of literary references and notable instances might be useful. I would oppose a move to "pantsing" which is meaningless in British English - you cannot remove a man's pants (i.e. underpants) without first removing his trousers! Peterkingiron 00:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I've zapped the transwikification at Wiktionary. That was yet another example of an editor not bothering to check Wiktionary first before nominating something for transwikification. That there was and is a prominent box at the top of the article linking to the articles that Wiktionary already has, and has had since 2005, almost two years before this article even existed, only made it yet more egregious. Uncle G 00:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• No-brainer Keep, and leave it where it is. "De-bagging" is a well-known British public school tradition, whether one likes it or not. The article is not brilliant, but sufficiently well referenced, and indicates that it is notable within the definition of wikipedia. Ohconfucius 08:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete. Certainly should be back at pantsing, where it had been for some time. The AfD was not handled well. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 03:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • This article has never been at such a title. Uncle G 14:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
    • The AfD result on pantsing was to merge with this article, but not necessarily into. (Actually, it looked to me that the outcome should have been delete both, but that's another issue.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:14, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete The references don't include the term, and it sounds like a (slang) dicdef (so leave it in the wiktionary). -- Ratarsed 14:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep It's not a pretty article, and there's much room for improvement, but I see no reason why it should be deleted. The nominator's reasoning is not very convincing. One of the reasons for Wikipedia's existence is to provide a place for articles which would never find room in a paper encyclopedia. EthanL (talk) 06:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom & Ratarsed. Or move to Unknickering. --Evb-wiki 17:05, 7 June 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.