Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Editor in chief

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 02:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Editor in chief

Editor in chief (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This article i just searched looks like something that does not qualify for Wikipedia, and this article here should be deleted per Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This article is no more than a dictionary entry, and this page should either be deleted or transwikied to Wikitionary if it hasn't yet. Mythdon (talk) 20:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

  • I agree with you, but you didn't put the AFD tag on the article. Lady Galaxy 22:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • This is what we call a stub. Please read our Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary policy and our Wikipedia:Deletion policy. We don't delete stubs with potential for expansion into full articles. Given that several books on the newspaper industry devote entire chapters to this job alone, there is clearly scope for expansion of this stub. The PNC is satisfied. Keep. Uncle G (talk) 01:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Stub with genuine potential to be turned into a full featured article. Pharmboy (talk) 02:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment, if it stays it needs to be moved to Editor-in-chief (which is how it's almost always spelled and the correct spelling). TJ Spyke 09:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Actually, Redirect to Editing (which is what my above suggestion also redirects to). It's already covered in far more detail there. TJ Spyke 09:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
comment I am not necessarily opposed to merging, but it would seem that Editing is more general and describes a process, whereas this article describes a job or function. I would need that explained a bit before I would say merge is acceptable. My gut instict is that a merge isn't the proper course to take, but open to hear why my instinct is wrong. Pharmboy (talk) 15:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Only stubs that can never be more than definitions can be deleted as "dictionary definitions;" otherwise, they are simply stubs that begin at the beginning. It seems fairly obvious that this has potential for expansion. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - it currently is a poor stub, but the article is very likely expandable as it is a job function. -- Whpq (talk) 17:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep A key basic subject of the encyclopedia's coverage of journalism. VanTucky 01:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, a bit more than a dicdef, has sources, could be expanded.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 13:58, 28 January 2008 (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.