Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Page widening

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 redirect. I'm redirecting to word wrap for now but if anyone has a better idea for a target feel free to change that. I'm doing this so that anyone interested can perform the small merges suggested below. Mangojuicetalk 20:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Page widening

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

Orphaned page, seems more like a HOWTO than an article. It's poorly sourced and seems to be the result of Wikipedia:original research. Its significance as a phenomenon is not explored. In September, 2006, it was listed as a PROD and then deleted. More recently it seems to have been restored. Tony Sidaway 15:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Also apologies to RHaworth, who restored, for not discussing this undeletion with him before coming to AfD. I didn't realise that the article was a restoration until I had opened this discussion. I've notified him. --Tony Sidaway 20:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak delete per nom--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 16:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  • There are two parts to this article; selective minimal merge to scrolling and forum spam respectively. There probably are reliable sources that talk about this, but I think the 2 distinct topics in this article, which don't really flow together, are better situated in the other two. In the second part, there's too much emphasis on Slashdot as most decent sites should know to parse for a high number of consecutive non-space characters. –Pomte 08:18, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. A technical term whose meaning is not obvious so a definition is needed. It is being used in this way from places such as here or here.
I am totally mystified by the accusation of "original research". The article is self-defining in a way - it contains examples of page widening - what more needs to be said? OK, possibly a couple of external links to show that this is the accepted term and to point to examples of trolling.
I was surprised at the relatively small number of Google hits for the term. The article has been around for over five years it certainly should not be deleted just because some anon has prodded it.
A slight change of wording converts any "how to" aspect (and in any case it would be an how-not-to!) into an "how it happens" statement. Merge into scrolling is inappropriate - it deserves its own short article. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 04:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Caknuck (talk) 20:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to word wrap (probably a more precise target than scrolling). --Dhartung | Talk 21:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete I think these two topics need to be separated, and merged to appropriate locations if they exist. If appropriate locations don't exist, I think this material could simply be deleted. I'm not sure we need a definition of page widening, and the info is kind of obvious. The second topic is more vandalism than trolling, and it seems rather obscure to me. Brianyoumans (talk) 21:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 22:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Fails WP:RS, WP:N and is probably WP:OR. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:49, 11 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.