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. There is a rough consensus that the various base requirements for an article are met, with some other arguments not necessitating deletion. There is also a significant opinion that the article needs significant reworking to remove non-reliable sources and resolve NPOV issues, which I encourage those interested to do so.
(non-admin closure)Nosebagbear (
talk)
14:34, 16 August 2018 (UTC)reply
Question Is the likelihood of someone searching for an article (and/or evidence of popularity) a legitimate argument at AfD? I have not seen this before. --
Theredproject (
talk)
20:07, 11 August 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep, but renameThe navel in popular culture. I haven't read the whole article, but the parts I did gaze at looked okay to me, and there seem to be plenty of acceptable references. Barbara Eden's navel coverage, for example, is fairly well-known. Afd is not for cleanup.
Clarityfiend (
talk)
23:43, 10 August 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep -- An article with 354 references is a very substantial one.
The navel in popular culture would certainly be a better name. If it lacks NPOV, as one tag implies, that is a matter to be resolved by editing, not by deletion.
WP:OR is usually about material with no citations, which might be the editor's invention. It might be complained that this is an essay, but I do not think that is a valid criticism.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
16:34, 13 August 2018 (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.
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. There is a rough consensus that the various base requirements for an article are met, with some other arguments not necessitating deletion. There is also a significant opinion that the article needs significant reworking to remove non-reliable sources and resolve NPOV issues, which I encourage those interested to do so.
(non-admin closure)Nosebagbear (
talk)
14:34, 16 August 2018 (UTC)reply
Question Is the likelihood of someone searching for an article (and/or evidence of popularity) a legitimate argument at AfD? I have not seen this before. --
Theredproject (
talk)
20:07, 11 August 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep, but renameThe navel in popular culture. I haven't read the whole article, but the parts I did gaze at looked okay to me, and there seem to be plenty of acceptable references. Barbara Eden's navel coverage, for example, is fairly well-known. Afd is not for cleanup.
Clarityfiend (
talk)
23:43, 10 August 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep -- An article with 354 references is a very substantial one.
The navel in popular culture would certainly be a better name. If it lacks NPOV, as one tag implies, that is a matter to be resolved by editing, not by deletion.
WP:OR is usually about material with no citations, which might be the editor's invention. It might be complained that this is an essay, but I do not think that is a valid criticism.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
16:34, 13 August 2018 (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.