| Revision as of 09:06, 20 February 2022 editCoffee (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers48,540 edits Relisting discussion (XFDcloser)← Previous edit | Revision as of 10:29, 20 February 2022 edit undoBabegriev (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Rollbackers6,020 edits →Opposite DayNext edit → | ||
| Line 25: | Line 25: | ||
| :<p class="xfd_relist" style="margin:0 0 0 -1em;border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 2em;"><span style="color: #FF6600;">'''{{resize|91%|] to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}'''</span><br /><small>Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 01:41, 13 February 2022 (UTC)</small><!-- from Template:XfD relist --><noinclude>]</noinclude></p> | :<p class="xfd_relist" style="margin:0 0 0 -1em;border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 2em;"><span style="color: #FF6600;">'''{{resize|91%|] to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}'''</span><br /><small>Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 01:41, 13 February 2022 (UTC)</small><!-- from Template:XfD relist --><noinclude>]</noinclude></p> | ||
| :<p class="xfd_relist" style="margin:0 0 0 -1em;border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 2em;"><span style="color: #FF6600;">'''{{resize|91%|] to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}'''</span><br /><small>Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, <small style="color:#999;text-shadow:#D3D3D3 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em">— ] // ] // ] // </small> 09:06, 20 February 2022 (UTC)</small><!-- from Template:XfD relist --><noinclude>]</noinclude></p> | :<p class="xfd_relist" style="margin:0 0 0 -1em;border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 2em;"><span style="color: #FF6600;">'''{{resize|91%|] to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}'''</span><br /><small>Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, <small style="color:#999;text-shadow:#D3D3D3 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em">— ] // ] // ] // </small> 09:06, 20 February 2022 (UTC)</small><!-- from Template:XfD relist --><noinclude>]</noinclude></p> | ||
| *'''Keep''' – Concurring with {{u|Hobit}}. Subject ''is'' notable, despite the article ]. Certainly needs some cleanup to provide additional RS, however, arguments for deletion appear to focus too centrally on a ] fallacy. Article contents do not dictate notability, the subject does, for which GNG is met... at least to my eye. ] (]) 10:29, 20 February 2022 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 10:29, 20 February 2022
Opposite Day
AfDs for this article:New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- How to contribute
- Introduction to deletion process
- Guide to deletion (glossary)
- Help, my article got nominated for deletion!
- Opposite Day (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This 17-year-old article has very little content. It consists of one uncited paragraph and one cite-supported sentence. Notability not established. Nightscream (talk) 01:24, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 February 6. —Talk to my owner:Online 01:47, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:57, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
- Weak Delete I feel like there should be sourcing for why this persisted as a game, or what it teaches, but I'm unable to find anything in the way of RS coverage. Just teachign materials. Star Mississippi 02:45, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
- Delete While the concept is certainly notable, the fact is that the article has been around since 2005 and has remained more or less a stub since. For a topic not time-bounded and otherwise well-known, the fact that editors have struggled to find WP:RS indicates to me that this topic doesn't have enough substance to merit being on Misplaced Pages. I've looked through a couple past revisions of the page, and there doesn't seem to be much more than a couple paragraphs of description and the occasional extra section like appearances in popular media. --Aismallard (talk) 05:52, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- Delete As failing WP:GNG. Should probably then be made into a disambiguation page or the film article be moved there. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:53, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Delete per nomination. I'm surprised this has been kept in previous AfD... Spf121188 (talk) 19:48, 7 February 2022 (UTC)- Folks, let's try a bit of WP:BEFORE, eh? Search, don't base things on the article.
- Keep The biggest problem with sourcing this is all the hits that get in the way that aren't quite this. But an article can easily be built around all that.
- Sorry, I've got to get back to work, but folks it's clearly notable. Not a great article for sure. And we could have a whole article (or section) on "Opposite day in popular culture" given all the TV shows, comics and books that have an issue or episode named after this... Hobit (talk) 13:51, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
- Hobit, I actually think renaming the article Opposite day in popular culture and using sources like the ones you've noted would be a good alternative to deletion. Spf121188 (talk) 15:56, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 01:41, 13 February 2022 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 09:06, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
- Keep – Concurring with Hobit. Subject is notable, despite the article being short. Certainly needs some cleanup to provide additional RS, however, arguments for deletion appear to focus too centrally on a WP:LONGTIME fallacy. Article contents do not dictate notability, the subject does, for which GNG is met... at least to my eye. Bgv. (talk) 10:29, 20 February 2022 (UTC)