Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Out of position

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. Sandstein 10:41, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Out of position (crash testing)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is nothing more than a dictionary definition, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. A PROD on the same grounds was seconded by Rotten regard, but then contested by Cyclopia, with an edit summary that said "It has a book reference and it doesn't seem a mere dictionary definition." The reference is irrelevant, since the reason for proposing deletion is not the lack of a reference, and I really do not see how this single sentence statement of what the expression means can be regarded as more than a dictionary definition. (I see that the article has been tagged as probably not satisfying the notability guidelines for a year and nine months.) JamesBWatson (talk) 09:18, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article brought to AfD on 7 December was moved 14 hours later to the title Out of position (crash testing), and what is now at Out of position is a disambiguation page. PamD 13:18, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Misguided deletion rationale. WP:DICDEF is a deletion reason if and only if the article cannot be anything more than a dictionary definition ever. If it can be improved from its DICDEF status by editing, then it is not a deletion rationale anymore. Now, the topic is notable per WP:GNG and sources allow it to be easily expanded from DICDEF status, as a quick look in Google Books shows: [1] , [2], [3], [4]. I recommend the nominator to apply WP:BEFORE next time, as mandated by our deletion procedure. --Cyclopia ^talk 10:20, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ comment The sources Cyclopia listed mention passengers being out-of-position and seem not to mention the very specific definition given in the article. The meaning of "out-of-position" with specific regard to crash test dummies seems rather nebulous and trivial and I do not see that there has been significant coverage of this subject for it to meet the general notability guidelines and warrant a standalone article. At best a section on out-of position could be added to Crash test and this turned into a redirect. Rotten regard 16:02, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but four distinct book paragraphs dedicated to the subject definitely meet WP:GNG, regardless of what you "see". The concept applies to both crash testing and actual crashes, so merging in crash test doesn't seem valid -but I'm open to discuss this. --Cyclopia ^talk 22:20, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Out of position can mean a lot of things. In fact, the poker term is IMO much more significant, but none of them merit an article. A redirect to Position (poker) might be in order; I could cobble together a section with this term. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:49, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Out of position (crash testing) to disambiguate. --Cyclopia ^talk 23:07, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've created a disambiguation page. There's a way to have both meainings. Diego (talk) 08:09, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Also please note that books ref. like [5] cite in turn a lot of academic papers on the topic. I am currently expanding the article. --Cyclopia ^talk 23:20, 7 December 2012 (UTC) - Also, check search in Google Scholar, where it seems definitely notable in the context of airbag research. --Cyclopia ^talk 23:36, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Article rewritten now, with six academic (book or conference proceedings) sources. It is definitely not a dictionary definition anymore and this should address also Rotten regard (talk · contribs) concerns about the specific definition of the article. --Cyclopia ^talk 23:49, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Cyclopia ^talk 23:54, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This would be ideal content for Crash test, I still don't see that it warrants a standalone article. Rotten regard 23:57, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cyclopia has now essentially created a brand new article from the one sentence that previously existed, though I still think it best merged into crash test. I'm now also thinking that Out of position could probably become a disambiguation page given what Clarityfiend said about the poker term. Rotten regard 00:10, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Diego (talk) 08:11, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable as an encyclopaedic concept - or even as a dictionary definition: 'out of position' could mean all sorts of things (I'm not going to bother using Google to prove the point), and creating articles for sequences of words with multiple meanings is just plain daft. Add an 'out of position' section to the Crash test article by all means - but don't try to kid our readers that this is anything more than simple phraseology, even there. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:43, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did you have a look at the article now? Did you see I've moved it to Out of position (crash testing)? Did you see the references? --Cyclopia ^talk 00:51, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Two entries, no primary topic, disambiguation is needed. Possible paths to a fix: delete either article (one is also at AFD) first, and redirect this title to the other; redirect this title to the poker article with a hatnote there to the crash test article; return the crash test article to the base name and put a hatnote on it to the poker article. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:11, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a real thing [6] and referenced material is in the article showing its more than just a simple definition. Dream Focus 14:27, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This disambiguation for two entirely different terms is informative and useful. Are inline citations needed to keep this?--DThomsen8 (talk) 03:05, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, it's a bit messy -the page has been moved to Out of position (crash testing), and that's the page we're talking about. Of course if the moved page is deleted, the DAB goes away too. --Cyclopia ^talk 16:38, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There should be a notification for the Gambling project, on behalf of the poker term.

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.