Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reputation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —Korath (Talk) 01:26, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reputation

del. Dicdef. Wiktionary:reputation already exists. Mikkalai 08:01, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, duplicate dictionary definition. Megan1967 08:15, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • It's an album by Dusty Springfield, if that helps. ☺ Uncle G 08:36, 2005 Mar 28 (UTC)
  • Keep, this is a better definition than the wiktionary one. Also has potential for expansion. Kappa 10:06, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • How would you expand this, then? Any article on 'reputation of <foo>' should probably be kept at '<foo>'. Radiant_* 12:01, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
      • Personally I would expand it to discuss the significance of reputation in various fields such as customer/investor relations, or online communities, and give some specific examples. I could also mention designer brands like Burberry being adopted by street culture, and ending up with a reputation for being worn by hooligans, or the way some people commit suicide rather than live with a dishonorable reputation. Kappa 13:19, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • Sounds good to me. Keep, then. Radiant_* 09:50, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Important subject. N-Man 13:32, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Hesitant keep, but only if within the forseeable future someone inserts sociological or politicological research on this aspect human nature. JFW | T@lk 14:04, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. Has the potential to discuss sociological phenomena and so forth. Doesn't need the self-referential bits about reputation on Wikipedia, however. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 15:19, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • What's wrong with the wikipedia bit? I think it's a reasonably well-known website, gets 13 million hits... Kappa 16:44, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Nothing's out-and-out wrong with it; it's just a tad obscure and technical. Although quite a few people know Wikipedia exists, only a very small fraction of that number really have much understanding of how it works. I hate to drag a mention of of anonymous IP addresses into an article on a sociological concept unless there's absolutely no way to avoid it. Mind you, there might be a section about reputation in online communities in general waiting to spring forth, and the effects of anonymity/pseudonymity (is that a word?). I would tend to talk about the reputation system on eBay or Slashdot's karma first. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 17:27, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete dicdef. --Smithfarm
    • You really are supposed to look at the article before voting. Kappa 17:54, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • The sad thing is that I did look. Still think it's a dicdef (albeit with a couple examples appended). Having read the article, I still wouldn't know it is an important concept in sociology. I defer to the consensus, and hopefully someone will expand the article and give this the treatment it evidently deserves. Doesn't the online communities part qualify as original research? --Smithfarm
  • Keep; an important concept in sociology, related to matters like face (social custom) and honour -- Smerdis of Tlön 17:55, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, article is fine as currently written. DaveTheRed 18:53, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • What is going with the article is good and well, but for two things I disagree. First, it smacks of original research: no authoritative sources that discuss the notion of "reputation" per se. Second, IMO what we have here now is just a storytelling that uses the word "reputation". Everyone may throw in his favourite case of damaged reputation, but anecdotes do not make it more encyclopedic. I am not a sociologist, but I still fail to see a possibility of an encyclopedic discourse for this word, as well as for its synonym, "opinion", by the way. Mikkalai 20:16, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Hear, hear. Another example of this kind of thing is Default (computer science) These articles attempt to go beyond a dicdef by presenting trivia and anecdotes. --Smithfarm
  • Keep. —Markaci 2005-03-28 T 22:51 Z
  • Keep and expand. But no self-references. -Sean Curtin 00:22, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and let it grow. Sociological significance and all. FreplySpang (talk) 04:02, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Good stub with potential to grow. Capitalistroadster 11:23, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep (maybe a weak keep, but so what?). I would suggest a new banner (like POV-banners, etc, placed at top of articles that we wish to get improved further beyond the level of wiktionary definitions.
— I'm not sure the stub-banner would be a good place to state such a wish of ours, but maybe a certain kind of stub-banners? However, that might be complicated to combine with the stub-sorting project. /Tuomas 06:58, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
{{Move to Wiktionary}} contains such a notice already. —Korath (Talk) 01:26, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.