Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aglaophotis
- 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:30, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
Aglaophotis
- Aglaophotis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The article about this fictional plant was PRODded after being unreferenced for ten years. A BEFORE search turned up the OED dicdef as a fictional plant and some blog posts describing its use in several video games. No other independent reliable sources. The article is unlikely to ever grow from the current stub. Text should be merged into an appropriate article and this article converted to a merge. Alone, the topic is trivia and unencyclopedic. Rhadow (talk) 10:03, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the missfortune 10:34, 11 December 2017 (UTC)]
- Note: This debate has been included in the missfortune 10:35, 11 December 2017 (UTC)]
- Keep Before AFDing an article, it would be most helpful if the nominating editor would carry out some basic checks like a Google book search. Try clicking the word "books" above and one will see many, many references. I'm all in favour of high quality referencing but just because the article has been unreferenced for 10 years is no reason to delete. We would all be better spending our time adding references rather than conducting deletion debates. Finally, to argue that the topic is "trivia" is a statement of opinion while the assertion that that it is "unencyclopedic" is not supported by the fact that many WP:RS mention the topic. I have added one reference to demonstrate how improvements can readily be made and if the nominator wants to enter into a Wikipedia wager with me whereby I will take the article beyond a stub if he carries out at least 500 appropriate replacements of template "End box" with "s-end" then I will set to work on the article. Greenshed (talk) 03:12, 12 December 2017 (UTC)]
- Keep Just because an article has not been referenced for 10 years does not mean references don't exist, it simply means that people haven't found that page in order to add references to it. Similarly, that reason also applies for the article being a stub, if people cannot find/search for the article, then it won't be improved because there is no-one to edit it. It is unnecessary to delete the article if there is sufficient material which can be used to improve it. Generally speaking, I wouldn't flag an article for deletion if I have not contributed to it in the past (as that implies that I wouldn't want to bother improving the article), therefore for these reasons, I think the article should be kept. GippoHippo (talk) 14:44, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
- Keep Took me 5 minutes to find two more references. I wasn't even really trying. I'm sure the book mentioned could be cited as well. talk) 17:00, 13 December 2017 (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.