- 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 no consensus. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:29, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Boarding up (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Original research. One source does not mention anything in the entry, the other very little. WP:NOTGUIDE. Contested PROD with no reason given. Wperdue (talk) 20:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The article already had a good source - a document of the United States Fire Administration which seems adequate to establish notability but I have added another and there are many thousands more sources to be sifted. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:09, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. When did a single document start to instantly equal notability? It should be deleted under WP:NOTHOWTO. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:11, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NOTHOWTO is not a reason to delete - it is a style guideline. Any concerns of that sort may easily be addressed by ordinary editing and so deletion is not appropriate. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:47, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Who cares if it is policy or a style guide? It sums up the reasoning nicely and saves me the time over a long, drawn out explaination. And no, every article can't be saved by editing and, more importantly, every article shouldn't be saved. I know you want to save every article on here, but that doesn't mean everyone will agree that it needs to be saved, even through editing. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:41, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Since when is WP:What Wikipedia is not a list of style guidelines? Does this include WP:SOAPBOX and WP:NOTDICTIONARY since they are all on the same page? Wperdue (talk) 15:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)wperdue[reply]
- Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not governs content as much as it governs subject. It is not limited to subject alone. Indeed, Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary and Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a soapbox are two policies that address content more than they address subject. (If one doesn't understand that, then one does not, especially so in the case of the former, understand the policy.) Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not says that content is informational, not instructional. Uncle G (talk) 12:46, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for implying that I cannot understand policy. Regardless, I'll continue to assume good-faith. Let us address what I feel is the main problem with this entry: original research. The content past the first three sentences is not, in any way, backed up by sources or anything more than a personal essay on potential reasons why someone would want to board up a property. For instance: "While it is not a common occurrence, vehicles that lose control can sometimes crash into the side of a home". I do not wish to pick apart this entry sentence by sentence but would be happy to provide my reasoning behind nominating this entry. It would be acceptable to me to keep the first three sentences, remove the rest, and make it a stub. Wperdue (talk) 15:15, 15 June 2009 (UTC)wperdue[reply]
- Simply answering the questions that you asked is not implying anything. It is asking those questions that has implications.
And if you want the original research edited out of the article with the ordinary editing tool, that you yourself possess, you should do exactly that. It takes two edits fewer than an AFD nomination. ☺ Only nominate things for deletion if use of the deletion tool is actually what you want. See also User:Uncle G/Wikipedia triage#What to do. Uncle G (talk) 19:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done and done. 03:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)wperdue
- Simply answering the questions that you asked is not implying anything. It is asking those questions that has implications.
- Thank you for implying that I cannot understand policy. Regardless, I'll continue to assume good-faith. Let us address what I feel is the main problem with this entry: original research. The content past the first three sentences is not, in any way, backed up by sources or anything more than a personal essay on potential reasons why someone would want to board up a property. For instance: "While it is not a common occurrence, vehicles that lose control can sometimes crash into the side of a home". I do not wish to pick apart this entry sentence by sentence but would be happy to provide my reasoning behind nominating this entry. It would be acceptable to me to keep the first three sentences, remove the rest, and make it a stub. Wperdue (talk) 15:15, 15 June 2009 (UTC)wperdue[reply]
- Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not governs content as much as it governs subject. It is not limited to subject alone. Indeed, Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary and Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a soapbox are two policies that address content more than they address subject. (If one doesn't understand that, then one does not, especially so in the case of the former, understand the policy.) Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not says that content is informational, not instructional. Uncle G (talk) 12:46, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Since when is WP:What Wikipedia is not a list of style guidelines? Does this include WP:SOAPBOX and WP:NOTDICTIONARY since they are all on the same page? Wperdue (talk) 15:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)wperdue[reply]
- Keep Quite obviously a notable practice. --Apoc2400 (talk) 23:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- nothing more than a dictionary definition. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 01:55, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as dic def that if expanded will be a how-to. If for some reason it is kept it should be moved to Board up. I was going to suggest redirect to Hurricane preparedness except for the part about keeping out arsonists or whatever. Drawn Some (talk) 03:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, although this might not seem notable, it is in its own right. For example, it's a popular way to keep homes from being damaged during foreclosure. It also helps to preserve a building from the environment. I think that the article could be renamed, but it should be kept. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:04, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - this is a dictionary definition, and there is already a sufficient one at wikt:board up. A guide to how-to board up a property (which some above seem to advocate this becoming) is equally not encyclopaedic, but a topic for Wikibooks' how-tos bookshelf. Thryduulf (talk) 18:46, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This is certainly not a dictionary definition, in that it describes a process rather than define a phrase, and is not a how-to guide as it describes this process rather than give instructions on how to do it. No valid reason has been presented for deletion. A move to Board up would violate naming conventions - article titles should be noun phrases, not verb phrases. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:56, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Discusses a process, not a word, so not a dicdef. Discusses in general terms, not the specific ones of a practical manual. A practical manual would be much more detailed than this: just what brands of plastic, how to attach it, how to use the plywood, etc etc. than this. This can safely use some expansion, and there should be a good deal of literature. Suitably encyclopedic, just needs some additional sources. DGG (talk) 08:57, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.