Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Accident of birth
- 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 delete. I'll also note PROD is not for cleanup, so not sure the case Charles Matthews is making here with respect to process Star Mississippi 03:21, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
Accident of birth
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Accident of birth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Little more than a dictionary definition Chidgk1 (talk) 12:34, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Chidgk1 (talk) 12:34, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: WP:BEFORE. Charles Matthews (talk) 12:55, 23 January 2024 (UTC)]
- If the references above and now in the article are being taken in the sense of WP:SIGCOV, then I have to say I disagree. Charles Matthews (talk) 04:58, 29 January 2024 (UTC)]
- I'm going to suggest userfy the article. It is not in good shape now, clearly, but also I think deletion would be harsh. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:02, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
- I commend on your enthusiasm, but you just was well can restart it in your user space. There is nothing to salvage from article history.- Altenmann >talk 04:22, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
- Your comments below do not add up to a reason to delete under policy. The article can be fixed up by normal editing; the nomination for deletion here of such articles is problematic. AfD is not a cleanup mechanism, and should not be used as such: try PROD. I'd like to have the article userfied so that I can do a proper job of researching it, rather than trying to get it over some nominal bar in a sprint over a few days. The OED reference to Algernon Sidney's Discourses is to a work that gets 40 page references in the index to Blair Worden's Roundhead Reputations; so is worth amplification. Charles Matthews (talk) 11:24, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
- I commend on your enthusiasm, but you just was well can restart it in your user space. There is nothing to salvage from article history.- Altenmann >talk 04:22, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
- I'm going to suggest userfy the article. It is not in good shape now, clearly, but also I think deletion would be harsh. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:02, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
- If the references above and now in the article are being taken in the sense of
- Delete This is OR about a concept which does not have significant coverage in secondary sources. Llajwa (talk) 21:10, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:30, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
- Delete without prejudice for recreation. The definition is dubious OR. But the phrase does have reasonable refs. - Altenmann >talk 04:22, 1 February 2024 (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.