Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pure play (2nd nomination)
- 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 - this is a proper encyclopedia article stub, not merely a dictionary definition. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-08 09:36Z
- Pure play (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- Pure play was nominated for deletion on 2005-03-16. The result of the discussion was "keep". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pure play.
Jargon. No indication of notablity. Should probably transwiki to Wiktionary Vassyana 17:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary; transwiki as Vassyana suggested Semperf 18:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Transwiki per nom. Arakunem 19:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This is an encyclopaedia article about pure plays, what they are, who is and isn't a pure play, and an accounting method based upon them. Wiktionary is not an encyclopaedia. Uncle G 20:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's also a stub with clear scope for expansion, there being more to say about the "pure play method", which can be sourced to books on financial management. I strongly urge editors to do research before nominating articles for deletion. Keep. Uncle G 20:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Please assume good faith. I did research the matter. There are an abundance of definitions that are more or less the same for "pure play". However, outside of a few debates/essays about whether a diverse or focused approach is better this subject doesn't have much meat. Subjects of this type, which are basically definitions, do not belong in Wikipedia. It's just a jargon phrase with limited scope. I also do not find the "pure play method" notable as it is nothing differant than what is done with other businesses. (That is, analysis is based on the type and market of the business.) Of course, this is just my opinion based on my research. If you have contrary sources and information please use that knowledge to improve the article. Vassyana 22:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There was no assumption of bad faith. But it is clear that this nomination and several of the opinions here aren't based upon doing research, or even upon reading the last AFD discussion, where it was explained by several editors that this is a stub with scope for expansion, with several potential directions for expansion being suggested. You are also miscontruing our Wikipedia is not a dictionary policy, which does not imply that stubs do not belong in Wikipedia. This article is a stub. It is not a dictionary article. It is a stub encyclopaedia article. The two are not the same thing. Per our Wikipedia:Deletion policy, we only delete stubs if they have no scope for expansion. Actually reading the sources that are already cited in the article will show that there is far more to write on the subject of the "pure play method", because the sources provide more material. Your "expand the article for me or it should be deleted" ultimatum is not how collaborative editing works, nor is it how AFD works or how finding and fixing stubs works. The rest of us are not cleanup machines; and AFD is not cleanup. And, finally, whether you find the "pure play method" notable is immaterial. Notability is not subjective. We don't base inclusion or exclusion on editors' personal opinions of the importance of a subject. That way chaos lies. Uncle G 01:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Assuming, as you continue to do, that I did not research the topic or read the last AFD is certainly not assuming good faith. This article was tagged for notability since June with no additions, cleanup or talk page activity. While it is definately notable as a term (making it appropriate for Wiktionary), I really found no reason in my research that "pure play" is notable except anything as a definition, as I mentioned. While it is a common term, the definition is fairly straightforward and leaves little room for an encyclopedia article. My research indicates the same for the "pure play method". It has a relatively simple definition and seems to leave little room for additional encyclopedia material, except in discussing the parts ("beta", etc) which are already addressed in other articles. I was providing a comment on the deletion discussion. I was not demanding people agree or issuing an ultimatum and I was clear on that point. ("Of course, this is just my opinion based on my research.") Vassyana 07:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There was no assumption of bad faith. But it is clear that this nomination and several of the opinions here aren't based upon doing research, or even upon reading the last AFD discussion, where it was explained by several editors that this is a stub with scope for expansion, with several potential directions for expansion being suggested. You are also miscontruing our Wikipedia is not a dictionary policy, which does not imply that stubs do not belong in Wikipedia. This article is a stub. It is not a dictionary article. It is a stub encyclopaedia article. The two are not the same thing. Per our Wikipedia:Deletion policy, we only delete stubs if they have no scope for expansion. Actually reading the sources that are already cited in the article will show that there is far more to write on the subject of the "pure play method", because the sources provide more material. Your "expand the article for me or it should be deleted" ultimatum is not how collaborative editing works, nor is it how AFD works or how finding and fixing stubs works. The rest of us are not cleanup machines; and AFD is not cleanup. And, finally, whether you find the "pure play method" notable is immaterial. Notability is not subjective. We don't base inclusion or exclusion on editors' personal opinions of the importance of a subject. That way chaos lies. Uncle G 01:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Please assume good faith. I did research the matter. There are an abundance of definitions that are more or less the same for "pure play". However, outside of a few debates/essays about whether a diverse or focused approach is better this subject doesn't have much meat. Subjects of this type, which are basically definitions, do not belong in Wikipedia. It's just a jargon phrase with limited scope. I also do not find the "pure play method" notable as it is nothing differant than what is done with other businesses. (That is, analysis is based on the type and market of the business.) Of course, this is just my opinion based on my research. If you have contrary sources and information please use that knowledge to improve the article. Vassyana 22:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or merge. References go back over twenty years, so it's not so very new. Common term in investing. There might be someplace to merge it, though, such as an article on diversification. Fg2 01:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or merge per Fg2. Mathmo Talk 04:48, 3 February 2007 (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.