Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Window dressing

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. John254 01:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Window dressing

Window dressing (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Seems little more than random sets of originally-researched definitions. Anything particularly useful should be transwiki-ed there to its wiktionary entry, and this entry deleted. ZimZalaBim talk 19:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Amended nomination to include link to the wiktionary entry, which I meant to do originally. --ZimZalaBim talk 23:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Note I have removed the more blatant original research from the article. The version described by ZimZalaBim can still be found here. Whatever the outcome of this AfD discussion, the removed material should not be replaced unless it can be properly sourced Gwernol 12:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, valid terminology. Stifle (talk) 22:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak delete the article is a set of dictionary definitions with examples, and lacks encyclopedic content; also it only cites one source, which is a dictionary. --Snigbrook (talk) 22:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Keep now the original research has been removed. The discussion here suggests it can be expanded; if not expanded it can be merged into other articles. --Snigbrook (talk) 13:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Seems like more could be written on this topic, even though it hasn't happened yet. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 00:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand with a fuller discussion and more in the way of sourcing. But it's already more than Wiktionary. DGG (talk) 01:09, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete Reads like a dictionary entry, not an encyclopedia article. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. The section about supposedly misleading conduct by fund managers seems to be using the article as a coatrack. Other than that, the article is an extended dictionary definition. EALacey (talk) 12:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Keep. The article doesn't look too bad now. A merge with display window might be a good idea, but that can be handled outside AFD. EALacey (talk) 16:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep I imagine that the article and its sourcing could be improved if given time. At this point, its already more than wiktionary, so I don't think DICDEF is relevant. Celarnor Talk to me 21:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep Although needs more references, it could get some. The little of it I wrote has a reliable published source. Wictionary requires sources also. The original reasearch rule is: Wikipedia:No original research.--Chuck (talk) 20:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep as rewritten, would like to see this improved further ala WP:HEY. (jarbarf) (talk) 22:15, 19 May 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.