Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Farewell address
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 Merge to Farewell speech. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-07 10:48Z
[edit] Farewell address
A dictionary definition in essence, but then with substantial (and substantially incorrect) material that is inherently POV. WP is not Wiktionary. Utgard Loki 18:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment WP:WINAD is not a reason to delete or transwiki this article, because it's not a dictionary article. The article is about the concept of farewell addresses, not the term "farewell address." Pan Dan 19:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Lean
keepas this is a moderately well-known topic that could be expanded beyond politics and particularly American politics. One potential list[1] (though not WP:RS, it's easily enough verified elsewhere). Additionally, I disagree with the nom that the article is "substantially incorrect". --Dhartung | Talk 20:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)- "The first one" was Washington? <cough> The most important one was Washington? <sputter> No, it's substantially incorrect. The article is correct that a farewell address is a... well... farewell address. Past that, it's speculative and ill-informed. Utgard Loki 13:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- It needs improvement, but "first"->"first notable" doesn't seem wrong as a gloss, and the GW Farewell Address of 1796 is widely considered to have been the blueprint for US foreign policy for a century and informs it even today. --Dhartung | Talk 08:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- OK, I'm changing to merge to the slightly better (but sparsely linked-to) farewell speech. --Dhartung | Talk 08:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- It needs improvement, but "first"->"first notable" doesn't seem wrong as a gloss, and the GW Farewell Address of 1796 is widely considered to have been the blueprint for US foreign policy for a century and informs it even today. --Dhartung | Talk 08:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- "The first one" was Washington? <cough> The most important one was Washington? <sputter> No, it's substantially incorrect. The article is correct that a farewell address is a... well... farewell address. Past that, it's speculative and ill-informed. Utgard Loki 13:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - this topic is definitely worthy of inclusion. Needs expansion though. - Richardcavell 07:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, but expand. Just Heditor review 13:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- Merge with farewell speech, or weak keep as a stub, since it has potential as a full entry. A farewell address is more closely associated with politics than a farewell speech, so they may eventually merit their own full entries. --Strangerer (Talk | Contribs) 11:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- Merge with farewell speech. A farewell address, due to its more specific association with politics, is a subset of farewell speeches. Until there is more information, no need for a separate article exists. Also, redirect per merge (GFDL) and plausible search term. -- Black Falcon 08:51, 7 March 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.
