Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reality Checkpoint
From 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 was keep. BJTalk 19:13, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reality Checkpoint (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
A lamppost. Which some students happen to refer to as the "Reality Checkpoint". Without sources to establish it's notability/encyclopedic relevance for FOUR years... It has been mentioned in many places, including some published novels, but it has afaik never been the subject of a reliable third-party source. Plrk (talk) 17:42, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: there are as of now three sources in the article. They all mention the lamppost, but the lamppost is not the subject of any of them. Plrk (talk) 18:03, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment:does this mean we should also delete Smoot? and other odd college traditions? Bob (QaBob) 18:37, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's not "some students", it's a large part of the population of Cambridge. I'm happy with the references that have now been added. Stephen Turner (Talk) 18:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Per Bluap below, I've now decided that it makes more sense to merge it into Parker's Piece
, especially as there is already some overlap of content. But failing that, keep rather than delete. Stephen Turner (Talk) 08:11, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Per Bluap below, I've now decided that it makes more sense to merge it into Parker's Piece
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —Stephen Turner (Talk) 18:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as obviously notable, it's the central metaphor of a book. Richard Pinch (talk) 20:02, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per argument of Richard Pinch. Bob (QaBob) 20:13, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep though I did not expect to say that. significant university feature. Adequate soourcing. DGG (talk) 01:32, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with Parker's Piece. In my view, we could never get a reasonably sized article on the Reality Checkpoint itself. As a subsection of the Parker's Piece article, we have a better chance of getting a critical mass of information. (I prefer Keep to Delete, though) Bluap (talk) 05:31, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep—while I agree that it may not meet the literal wording of the notability guideline, I believe that by applying instead the verifiability policy upon which the notability guideline is based, the article is acceptable. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 06:35, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- SunTzuGuy wrote the following on the article itself. I moved it here. I hope that's OK. It might be notable that this was the user's second edit. Stephen Turner (Talk) 21:16, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per DGG and others.SunTzuGuy (talk) 20:42, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or merge with Parker's Piece. It should certainly not be deleted completely. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:47, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per arguments of DGG and Richard Pinch. Dynamite Eleven (talk) 03:10, 30 September 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.