Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United Airlines in popular culture

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. Consensus was that, even after a rewrite, this article had substantial WP:SYNTH, WP:IINFO and WP:N issues. The rewritten article was mostly about pop-media coverage of some specific subjects related to the airline, such as its 9/11 flights, and I'll restore the history on request if it is shown that consensus exists for a full or partial merger to somewhere else.  Sandstein  23:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

United Airlines in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This was created by an editor who wanted to make it more difficult to delete items already removed from United Airlines#In popular culture. Most of the information there is original research involving nonnotable, trivial or passing displays of United Airlines in the media. Anything that isn't should be placed back into the popular culture section at United Airlines. Since that section currently only has two entries, there was never a reason to fork it in the first place. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 16:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. The list has serious notability issues. --Matt (talk) 16:52, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • For the record, my delete stands even with the revised version. As others have said, move the United 93 information into the appropriate article, and then the remaining information still has trivia, notability, and original research issues. --Matt (talk) 14:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unsourced original research/synthesis, trivia, you name it. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 18:59, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above, OR and Trivia article. Rasadam (talk) 20:53, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, original research should be removed rather than spun off. WillOakland (talk) 22:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Still should be deleted as it now stands. There still is no source that discusss the subject per se, only different subjects that accidentally involve UAL. As for United 93, there happens already to be an article about that. WillOakland (talk) 03:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment maybe worth a couple of frequent flyer miles, but this would even be a reject from Hemispheres, the in-flight magazine for the airline; the difference between trivial and trivia is that the latter seeks to be interesting. Mandsford (talk) 23:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per as author. Better to err on the side of too much information than too little! Especially if it doesn't clutter the main article. --Inetpup (talk) 04:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alright folks, let's try to stay civil here. Intetpup has a right to his/her opinion. Although I'll have to remember that line, "Do you think AFD exists just for kicks?" It reminds me of the interrogator in The Lives of Others ("Do you think we simply arrest people on a whim under our humanistic system?"). Happy Fourth of July. Mandsford (talk) 14:51, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As the nominator says, the point of this is to get rid of material dealing with popular culture. first to remove content from the main article, then to delete it isf its in an article by itself--whatever works. If we can assemble all the scattered references to this from the movies, or as many as we can, its relevant content for wikipedia. DGG (talk) 03:01, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is a collection of instances of the United Airlines appearing in various media. We are not told what ties these instances together. These sources provided are not about the "United Airlines in popular culture", so the article is currently unsourced. The list is indiscriminate, as it includes a variety of cases; UAL plane flies by in a scene, jingle makes its way into a U2 lyric, people in a UAL flight in a movie, a UAL terminal is the set of a movie, somebody trying to make a reservation, etc. The article is original research and synthesis. I expect an article on a thing in popular culture to discuss what it represents, why it resonates with people. This article has none of that. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 05:59, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable - appears to be a collection of stuff not allowed in the main article because it is not notable. MilborneOne (talk) 09:09, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No sourcing of the main contents to speak of. I also think it is a little crass to describe "United 93" as a united flight in popular culture. (LGRdC rightly reminded me of a double vote Protonk (talk) 01:00, 6 July 2008 (UTC)) Protonk (talk) 16:09, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Section break regarding revised version since nomination; no longer just a list and now asserts notability and includes published secondary sources

  • Very strong keep per Wikipedia:Five pillars (discriminate, encyclopedic, notability to a real-world audience, consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning verifiable topics of popular culture with importance in the real world). Material from such an article at worst could easily be merged and redirected into articles on Aviation in popular culture (see this book as an obvious reference), some kind of connection with 9/11 and popular culture (see this link), etc. See such book references to United Airlines in popular culture as [1], [2], [3], etc. There is enough information out there where this information does indeed have encyclopedic potential and value so we really should be discussing how to use that information whether it is expanding this article, creating a new one, or something, rather than outright deleting. Anyway, I have so far done this to improve the article. Surely, something salvageable can be done with the information I have added. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:22, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The citations in the article are mainly for United 93. They belong there. I hesitate to turn this into another "IPC" debate, but we aren't questioning those references. We are questioning whether or not the broader idea of "united airlines in popular culture" is notable or sourced. How many of the United 93 sources specifically mention united airlines in popular culture? Even The Airplane in American Culture, which should be our anchor reference, only mentions (among the web-viewable text, which is substantial) United to quote employees or refer to policies towards female flight attendants. That book and the next two references only mention United Airlines trivially (the second book to use flight numbers and the third book to show how Barbie is embedded in popular culture). Those references don't support this topic. There is room for a GREAT Airplanes in popular culture article, but not united airlines in popular culture. Protonk (talk) 19:23, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree with that interpretation. We may still delete this article and use the sources in a completely different article without violating the GFDL. And I'm not suggesting that we make a United 93 in pop culture article, the article on United 93 will suffice. I still strongly content that no reference produced in this discussion or cited on the article verifies the statement "United Airlines is significant in popular culture". Tellingly, none of the books above have United Airlines in their indices. Protonk (talk) 19:41, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • We cannot Wikipedia:Merge and delete per the GFDL. We know have sourced information that can be merged to a host of articles and it would be logically to leave the article in place rather than expect editors to have to do searches again that have already been done to provide referenced content. I have no idea why or how you don't see the connection from the sources, but I suppose we have to agree to disagree there. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:45, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware of that restriction. That refers to when text is transfered. If no text is to be transfered, then no copyrightable work is used without attribution. In the case of facts, we are free to delete an article and later create similar content from the same sources at any point in the encyclopedia. But we are getting sidetracked. The ONLY way this article meets WP:N is if we have a source that says something about United Airlines (the company) in popular culture. Those United 93 sources don't say it. Those book sources don't say it. Without that, how can we justify maintaining the article in accordance with WP:N? Protonk (talk) 19:51, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Without any doubt the Hawaii-5-O material is at least transferable to that article, the comments on airlines in general in popular culture are transferable to such an article as that, the material on United 93 is transferable to that article, as well, i.e. there are now lots of text as well as references that could indeed be used elsewhere as well and in multiple places which is why deletion would not be the best choice here. The article meets any reasonable notion of notability, which itself is a heavily challenged guideline with diverse and significant proposals for revision ongoing. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:55, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Outdent) This isn't too hard for me. either a source says "United airlines is significant in popular culture", "United Airlines is notable in popular culture" (or words to that effect) or it doesn't. If no source says that, it is OR or SYN (take your pick, depending on how it is presented) to claim that in an article. Since this is an article about United Airlines in popular cultures, there is a de facto claim that the subject is notable. The article cannot exist without that claim. It is black and white. Protonk (talk) 21:44, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The sources presented in effect demonstrate that United airlines are particularly noteworthy as far as airlines go in popular culture, which is why the article needs to be kept in some manner. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 21:51, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But presenting sources to the effect of something where the sources don't actually say it is the definition of original research. All I need is a single article saying what I said above or words like it and I'm a convert. Even an article in a magazine devoted to United Airlines and its impact in american culture would do. What we have are articles about United 93 or mentions in books related to hull numbers (err...airframe numbers) of famous aircraft (usually famous for crashing, unfortunately). The Hawaii Five-O mention, while cool, is basically a paid promotion. I could no more justify hanging an article on that reference than I could justify making an Alcoa in popular culture article because they sponsored programs on television in the 1950's. If, for example, Wings was based on united airlines rather than sandpiper airlines, we could be closer to agreement. But as it stands, no sources make the claim the article is making. Protonk (talk) 22:00, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sources that mention United Airlines in the context of their use in popular culture is not original research and do in fact address United Airlines in popular culture. They don't need to be titled "United Airlines in popular culture" to be about "United Airlines in popular culture". --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 22:25, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But they no more mention United Airlines than to note (even in the case of United 93) that it happened to be a United Flight. Even in the Hawaii Five-O case, the source (so far as we can tell) doesn't mention united further than to say that United Airlines made a Product placement in the television show. The claim of the article is that united airlines is significant (or notable, or whatever) in popular culture and the sources supporting that claim are (as of this revision, starting from FN1, not FN0)
  1. An article about CGI in film. Not accessible from my library access (that doesn't mean anything, just that I can't see the full text).
  2. An article in ieee about the future of intelligent agents on the internet, quote that includes United in it:
  1. A pop culture encyclopedia which, under the Barbie section, notes that Mattel sold a Flight Attendant barbie in 1973. United Airlines is not mentioned elsewhere.
  2. "The Airplane in American Culture" Promising, but no mention of United Airlines is made in the index of the work and all in-text mentions that are available on google books are trivial in the extreme. United Airlines as a text string is mentioned several times, but usually preceding "Flight XX". One time where it is not, the book is discussing labor disputes between United and its primarily female (at the time) flight attendants in a larger article about gender issues.
  3. Search term is United Airlines, no quotes. P. 92: united food service is noted. p.95: one of uniteds advertisements is unfavorably compared to Nixon's "checkers" speech. p.101: Noting that United urged customers to fly to hawaii in a paragraph about airlines urging people to fly to hawaii. p.121 Airline accident. p.149 United 93. The rest is not united, back matter or the index.
  4. A website about pop culture references to 9/11 style attacks before 9/11. the only mention of united is to designate the flight numbers.
  5. A history of pop culture. United is not in the index. references to united are solely to designate the flight number of the planes in 9/11.
  6. A blog movie review of United 93.
  7. A new york times review of united 93. All mention of united airlines is related to factual description of the events on 9/11.
  8. slate.com movie review of united 93.
  9. A mention that the producers of Hawaii five-o requested and United paid for film of flights taking off and landing for use in the opening montage.
  10. Basically the same thing.
That is it. That is every reference on that page. I do not see anything that suggests a broader implication beyond the listing of flight numbers and the promotion of a company through a television show. In my opinion, to use these sources to claim that United Airlines is significiant or notable in popular culture is to conduct original research and to misrepresent the text and intent of the sources. As they stand, these sources verify the text by and large, but ref 1 probably doesn't, ref 2 definitely doesn't and none of them make or support the claim that the article is making. As I haven't !voted before, I will now. Strong Delete for reasons of original research and notability. Protonk (talk) 23:09, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's actually not true, you already "voted" here regarding this notable example of unoriginal research. There are sufficient references that can be either used as a basis of an article here or for merging and redirecting elsewhere, which is why deleting the article now would be detrimental to our project. Plus, we have to think beyond sources found in a mere five days relying on Google. Notice here for example. An article that has been around unsourced for three years and I just happen to be reading a book by Napoleon Bonaparte in which Napoleon devotes a whole chapter to discussing this man. And sources do indeed exist from this article and elsewhere that we can use to merge and redirect into an [{Airlines in popular culture]] article. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 23:32, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Double "vote" corrected, thanks for that. It is true that 5 days may not allow for an exhaustive search but neither will 5 years. to argue that 5 days isn't enough for even one source to substantiate the article isn't fair. The only response to that is either to NEVER nominate articles for deletion or to allow the debates to continue indefinitely. Please, please produce some sourcing that substantiates the article or imputes some notability. I'm disinclined to continue to produce evidence that this article is original research if the only response will be having the article referred to as "unoriginal research". If it is not original research than surely some source must feature united airlines (the airline, not the text string) significantly or make some claim along the lines of "united airlines has had a significant influence in pop. culture". The sources in the article don't show that, and neither do the sources we have seen while researching the article. At what point can we accept that maybe, just maybe, United Airlines isn't that important in popular culture? I mean, that is one option. Protonk (talk) 01:07, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(As for WP:N). You may state that reasonable minds differ about WP:N. That disagreement is a matter for the talk page or new proposed guidelines. We can't just interpret a possible lack of consensus by refusing to implement the guideline in an unrelated discussion. Protonk (talk) 21:44, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We can always Wikipedia:Ignore all rules when in such instances as this one outright deleting the article would prevent us "from improving or maintaining Wikipedia" as the article is necessary for the further revisions or from which to create a new article altogether or merge content to multiple articles. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 21:51, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I should have included that. I think that is appropriate. I would suggest that appeals to ingore all rules be the exception, rather than the rule. If you feel that the current notablity guideline constrains the article from improving wikipedia, then I think it is totally kosher to make an appeal like that. But (IMO) ignore all rules doesn't apply to OR/V/NPOV. In this case, the OR question has to be answered. Protonk (talk) 22:00, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it should not be invoked unless necessary, but even in this case as the article's unoriginal research, it's probably not even necessary to invoke. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 22:25, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a couple of years back almost every article had its "popular culture" section, where inane trivia were added. While some one has provided some serious academic content for this page, this bulk of it is still a list of trivial allusions in films etc. We might conceivably have an article Airlines in popular culture, but I do not see the need to have one on one particular airline or even every one of 1004 airlines (or however many there may be). Peterkingiron (talk) 20:42, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would be against starting an airlines in popular culture article from the content currently in this one. An Airlines/airplanes in pop culture article should be started from a broad resource (the book linked above) and individual sections should be fleshed out as needed and suggested by the MOS. Protonk (talk) 21:44, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or move/merge, this article looks pretty good, with lots of print refs. Including the Rosenbaum quote about Neil Young is a real stretch, though; I don't really see the relevance. An Airlines in popular culture article is a good idea, either in addition to this one or in place of it. Everyking (talk) 03:55, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep ... very(extremely, exceedingly, superbly, extraordinarily, incalculably, unconditionally, unboundedly, inordinately, and remarkably) strong keep - Let me vote again because we have a section break. Rescue article looks great! Great job! Thanks! --Inetpup (talk) 07:00, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I am still keeping my delete vote. I am not doubting the fact that United Airlines has been mentioned in Popular culture, that was not in doubt when I first voted to delete. But the fact that a compiled list of pop culture references deserves an article is in doubt. This to me is WP:OR, as there is no real suggestion that United Airlines being mentioned in pop culture is a notable event. At most, a broad article that talks about the usage of airlines in pop culture would be acceptable, if referenced by works that document the subject (like the book mentioned earlier). But simply compiling a list of mentioning of the airline in pop culture (even referenced) is still WP:OR. There's nothing to suggest that its usage is notable. If we allow this to be kept, this list will only get bloated with trivial but sourced mentions and I don't see any encyclopedic value to this article. I mean no disrespect to the editors that have made an effort to improve the article, but I still think it shouldn't exist. The trivia sections in the main article were borderline, content forking it into a separate article still defies the WP:SIZE convention about non-notable forks. Rasadam (talk) 07:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry guys, but nobody gets to "vote" twice. Nearly everyone has made that mistake once, including me, so there's a friendly reminder that comes in response. A section break is simply placed to keep the discussion readable, and is not a recount. Once you've expressed your opinion, everything after that can be called comment or response or something that isn't a keep or delete tag. I've struck through the extra vote, take it up with an administrator if you don't like it, but that's the way it is. You're welcome to comment more than once, as Le Grand Roi (who labelled his first entry "keep") has, but the closing administrator needs to see an accurate show of hands when considering how many people have weighed in on a discussion. Best wishes. Mandsford (talk) 15:01, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No offense taken, never saw the section split done, thought it was a recount as others revoted. Rasadam (talk) 17:35, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The latest version is not original research and deemphasize the list significantly. Plus, we need the information in this article to make the other article that we could merge and redirect to. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 07:31, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Appears I was looking at the wrong version, I swore I still saw a list. But the argument that article should not be deleted to eventually go to a generic "Airlines in popular culture" article doesn't hold water for me. There are sandboxes for this reason, why not either rename the article straight off the bat or copyedit to a sandbox until that article is ready to go live. Other than the scholarly reception section, the rest of the article still suffers from the problem I mentioned above. Rasadam (talk) 07:41, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, there are sandboxes, but we could use the material from the scholarly reception section, so we can always just do a simple redirect that keeps the edit history available for any mergeable content, rather than having to look for the same sources and content all over again. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 11:33, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Wikipedia:No original research. Article is a list of disconnected product placements and I spy trivia bound together by the assumption that a parent organization can inherit pop culture notability. This list is then elevated to article status by the new and novel theory that the collection demonstrates the United Airlines has had a significant influence of popular culture. While there may be a meaningful subject here, Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought and as there is no evidence that this subject has ever been explored in a previously published work. --Allen3 talk 12:36, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This is completely unnecessary as it stands. The point is to discuss how the topic itself has been featured in popular culture and how that has impacted popular culture as a whole. The point is not to discuss 9/11, a film about 9/11, and some minor and trivial mentions of the company in pieces of media. The second sentence of the "Scholarly reception" paragraph, along with "such as the film "United 93"..." would be the only thing from this article worth salvaging (though the last bit about "Hawaii Five-O" could go into a marketing related section somewhere). That small bit can be placed within a succinct section in the main article rather than a useless full article. TTN (talk) 12:40, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This necessary article is presented in a manner in which it covers how it appears in popular culture in a variety of ways. All of those examples are aspects of popular culture and when material from one article can be placed elsewhere, we merge and redirect without deleting. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 12:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would support a redirect to the Airlines in popular culture article. Rasadam (talk) 17:35, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That page doesn't exist. the content we would move there would basically be some critical reception to United 93. Between the film and the crash article, all of the material is already there. The rest is a blanket statement about airlines in pop culture and a mention of a promotion in a television series. Whether or not an article should be created called Airplanes in popular culture (probably would be a better title rather than airlines) is not really subject to this AfD. Anyone can create and stub it now from the sourcing available on the web. We don't need to "merge" this page to a new page (read:rename) in order to avoid AfD. Protonk (talk) 03:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ahem, I am just thinking aobut the best way to have the information presented, rather than have this descend into the usual boring old trench warfare of these debates. FWIW I could think of numerous metions of Qantas and Aeroflot, as as well as discourse on the movies. But anyway, back to this as we are trying to establish consensus. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am too. In my opinion, the best way to present information on the topic Airplanes in popular culture would be for someone to sit down and start an article from scratch. Were we to rename United Airlines in popular culture and remove content redundant to United 93, we would be left with 2 lines, both of which could easily be written from the sourcing from scratch. As for "united in pop culture" or airlines in pop culture, I'm disinclined to start those pages because they will just collect lines like "So and so boarded a united flight for five seconds in this and that movie". If (as it is in this case) the article contains little but those references, it basically becomes a haven for original claims and misrepresentation of sourcing. We are better off deleting this article and allowing someone to create an Airplanes in popular culture article organically. Protonk (talk) 03:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure we do. We do it all the time. I mean, what is the precedent we set if we don't in this case? I'm not suggesting that you are gaming the afd system (really, I'm not), but someone could just add non-germane information to an article when it comes up for deletion then suggest it be merged into a target article. Let's say someone lists Patrick Tyler for deletion and I can't get sources for it. What if I add some information about Journalists in general and then insist the page be merged? what do we do then? Close the AfD and then who cares what happens to the article? Let me be clear again. I'm NOT accusing you of this. At all. This isn't even a backhand accusation. I'm saying that we have a policy and it would help if we apply that policy rather than contrive means to not apply it. Protonk (talk) 04:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well if you aren't maybe you should. We are not in the business of saving every single edit made by every single editor ever made on this encyclopedia. This article does not contain encyclopedic information and anything that isn't has already been included at the main article. There is no place to merge the information here because it is not encyclopedic. The information on what fleeting appearance United Airlines made in which movie does not inform anyone on the general topics of United Airlines or popular culture. It therefore does not serve an encyclopedic function and anyone arguing for preserving has yet to demonstrate why it shouldn't be deleted other than to keep it for the sake of saving the text. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 04:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please don't confuse your personal opinion with the rather indefinable 'encyclopedic'. This is somewhat contentious as tehre is (1) an AfD rather than a PROD going on and (2) some folks are voting to keep and (3) there are sources. Article history is important and there are rules on moving and merging material for this reason. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • None of those points addresses the prevailing question about the value of this information in the context of United Airlines. It's easy to find a bunch of useless sources for tangential topics for any article on this encyclopedia, but those sources -and by extension that statements they support- would be equally useless. Here we have an article in search of a purpose and nobody's found one yet. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 06:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh so where do you draw the line, 1950, 1930, 1850? What about heraldry or any symbolism for that matter? Thankyou for dictating to me what is useful and what is not. As an atheist I could say the same about religion and religious symbolism as they don't "serve a purpose" for me, but I don't. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent). We aren't asserting that sources do not exist. We are either asserting that they don't verify the text, don't support the claims made (or required by WP:N) in the article or are not germane to the topic. He started the AfD, so I rather suspect he knows what is going on. Protonk (talk) 05:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He's an administrator with 26 thousand edits. I think he's entitled to an opinion without having attention drawn to essays. Protonk (talk) 19:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Should I reply to this reply by saying I have over 20,000 edits and therefore do not need a reply? In a discussion, we intereact with each other and make suggestions and even some of the most accomplished of us aren't aware of other every idea expressed elsewhere on the project. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No. You should reply to this by saying something like "Oh, my bad. I guess I shouldn't have linked to WP:AADD in a didactic fashion when responding to someone who probably knows that essay back to front." I'm not saying he is immune from criticism because he has >X edits. I'm saying that perhaps care could be taken when picking teaching moments. Protonk (talk) 19:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. In disucssions we link to and suggest alternative arguments. Anyway, please get back to the article under discussion. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I guess. I mean, you are the master of your own destiny but I'm not the first person to suggest that it might not be helpful to reply to deletion comments in that fashion. Protonk (talk) 20:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we have some ideas of how to proceed with either keeping outright or merging and redirecting to a new article. Should we start the new article now as well? --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 20:18, 7 July 2008 (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.