Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tip of the day

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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:11, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tip of the day

Tip of the day (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Does not pass WP:GNG. I can only see the examples section expanded. Wumbolo (talk) 19:20, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. For some reason, I got summoned here. Out of curiosity, I have some questions for you... To prove notability, do you need a citation from a source about TOTDs in general? Or will a citation from coverage of any TOTD feature do? If a TOTD feature is notable, then by extension, the concept itself is too, right? Like the relationship between Dear Abby and advice column? Just checking. The Transhumanist 21:41, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. There's been a decade to provide some evidence that this is a noteworthy topic, and still a stubborn absence of sources. There's also no chance that this is actually the primary usage of the term; I'd estimate that well over 90% of uses of the phrase "tip of the day" relate to sports betting and don't actually mean "piece of advice given daily" but "piece of advice given on the day of the big game/horse race". ‑ Iridescent 22:29, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of progress in developing this article is not a valid reason to support deleting it. WP:NODEADLINES WP:NOTCLEANUP. ~Kvng (talk) 13:20, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – using google, you can find tip of the day web features on many subjects. I even ran into one on meditation. The Transhumanist 10:15, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. Tip of the day is a concept quite appropriate for an encyclopaedia. It is not just a word to be left for a dictionary, even if its meaning is self-explanatory. As a concept, it falls well within the acceptable limits defined in WP:NOT#DICDEF. i.e.Encyclopedia articles are about a person, or a group, a concept, a place, a thing, an event, etc.. Normally, none of us would accept Wikipedia as a WP:RS, but in this instance it is quite acceptable to use it as a reliable source, so I have added a definition from its own Tip of the Day Project to the article. Iridescent is right to point out that little has been added to this page in over a decade, but that doesn't mean the topic fails WP:GNG. We don't need to support it by straying into WP:WAX, but it is worth pointing out there are actually parallels in many articles such as Online help; FAQ and Question. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 01:03, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, notable as a concept. I removed the Wikipiedia TOTD stuff per WP:UNDUE. No independant sources discuss Wikipedia's TOTD, so we shouldn't bring it forward as an example of them. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:18, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:44, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:45, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:55, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep notable concept with multiple results in any search performaed. Article is fairly referenced. The Wikipedia TOD is clear undue problem but it has since been removed any other concern can be fixed too. Once subject is notable deletion is not solution because of fixable problem  — Ammarpad (talk) 15:49, 4 November 2017 (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.