Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/.007 (Rudyard Kipling)

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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The result of the nomination was nomination withdrawn. Mailer Diablo 04:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

.007 (Rudyard Kipling)

No real content. It needs to get expanded ASAP, or it should just go. --zenohockey 05:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

True, but I figure that if someone took the time to write even a few words and hit enter, there's a chance someone looking at this page will have enough information to make the article worthwhile. If not, well, it's already been there since May 12; a little while longer won't hurt. (A lot longer will, though) --zenohockey 05:43, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously now a Strong Keep - at this rate it could make Featured Article before the AfD discussion is done.Yomangani 12:11, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Awful write-up aside, this isn't one of Kipling's better known stories. It should just go on his page. Ace of Sevens 14:31, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Ace of Sevens. Idiotic writeup, minor story. I don't think it should even go on his page though Bwithh 16:40, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Maybe not the best article around, but as noted above, other Kipling stories have their own articles, and it's more deserving of amn article than all the Pokemon episodes.--Runcorn 19:31, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep + expand --Lukobe 20:32, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Awful article. Legitimate topic. I've always rather liked this story about anthropomorphized locomotives. Full text online here. There is at least a credible possibility[1] that James Bond's number may in fact have been suggested by the story. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:23, 5 July 2006 (UTC) P. S. I don't agree with Ace of Sevens that it is "not one of Kipling's better-known stories." Not ultra-famous but hardly obscure. For example, it was chosen as one of fifteen stories for inclusion in a little Signet paperback, "'The Mark of the Beast' and Other Stories." Dpbsmith (talk) 01:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very strong keep Keeping articles about individual episodes of TV series while deleting articles about stories by Nobel Prize winners makes Wikipedia a laughing stock. Cloachland 02:17, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, having articles whose only content is "A short story by Rudyard Kipling. The .007 is probably meaning caliber-number. This story has no relation to secret agent James Bond (codenamed 007)" makes WP a laughingstock. If it still looks like that after it's been on AfD for a week, there is clearly not enough interest among editors—and thus, presumably, WP readers in general—to make it worthwhile, at least at this time.
Besides, which do you think is more likely to make WP a laughingstock: Good articles on bad (read, "uncultured") topics, or barely readable articles on good topics? --zenohockey 02:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Amen, brother. Oh, wait... that was a rhetorical question. Well, I guess you'll never know which of your hypothetical opinions I'm agreeing with. You'll just have to guess as to whether I've guessed your true opinion. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If a sentence bothers you, {{sofixit}} applies. I've added a Project Gutenburg link to the talk page. GRBerry 03:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per zenohockey
  • Strong keep. The article has been expanded since it was nominated, and is now a much less obvious deletion candidate. (Incidentally, I profess bafflement as to why so many people, having expressed dissatisfaction with the old writeup and demonstrated that they knew what was wrong with it, didn't take a moment to fix it themselves. Surely, if you had time to moan about it here...) --Paul A 07:33, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Probably people didn't want to spend time on something that had lukewarm support and might be deleted (that was my reason anyway).Yomangani 09:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you're talking about me... well... I can't speak for others but I like to spend a little bit more time when I'm adding material to an article than when I'm commenting on it in an AfD. I shoot from the hip sometimes in an AfD comment, but I try not to when I'm editing an article. I wanted to get my "keep" in early, and I wasn't sure when I'd have time to work on the article. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And if you're talking about me, who took the time to nominate it...well, that's what I felt like doing. And lo, it led to a vast improvement in the article, didn't it? There's more than one way to bite the bullet. --zenohockey 03:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (or if that fails, merge and redirect it to the author article). Story by famous author should be covered especially when it's about antropomorphic locomotives, which don't seem to be his standard fare. I don't see any good reason to delete content about stories by Kipling in particular one that has been cleaned up. BTW, shouldn't this be at .007 without the modifier with a redirect at 007 (Rudyard Kipling) for those who forget the dot? - Mgm|(talk) 10:03, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Moved. --zenohockey 04:15, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would support withdrawing the nomination—I don't think I can do that unilaterally, but I'll ceremonially vote keep. Great job, everyone. --zenohockey 04:15, 8 July 2006 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/.007_(Rudyard_Kipling)&oldid=1143865707"