Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miser

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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:34, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Miser

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

Nom - Unsourced dictionary definition with ongoing BLP issues. This AfD should pretty much go the way of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Curmudgeon Rklawton (talk) 17:32, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the article is more than a simple dictionary definition and could be expanded. If there are BLP issues, the article should simply be protected. Laurent (talk) 17:34, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note - it's not sourced, and it's identical in form to Curmudgeon. Rklawton (talk) 17:43, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think the article could potentially be developed by citing studies about misers in literature. See for example this source (a blog but he's talking about an article in the Guardian) or that one. Laurent (talk) 17:48, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - The same could be said of Curmudgeon. And lest I appear pointy, I agree with Curmudgeon's deletion for the reasons cited. Wictionary can handle the literature aspect of this topic with useful examples throughout history. Rklawton (talk) 18:15, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ No, it's not a dictionary definition, it's a thinly disguised compilation that might as well be called List of famous cheapskates which will, if kept, need quite a bit of cleanup. Although I like lists, and this one is interesting, it violates WP:OR because of almost zero sourcing and it's definitely a violation of WP:POV. Whether someone is a "miser" is a matter of opinion, and some of the opinions expressed in the article are weird. It's somewhat of a surprise to see the term applied to Andrew Carnegie, perhaps the greatest philanthropist of the early 20th century. For Jack Benny, it was "all an act". The only person whom I've seen described by others as a miser is the infamous Hetty Green, who got the "she was so mean..." write up in the Guinness book for many years. I don't think there's a motivation for anyone to turn this from a "fun" article into an encyclopedia article. I'll be happy to withdraw my delete if I see any attempt at making it worthwhile. Mandsford (talk) 18:13, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As would I. Rklawton (talk) 18:15, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How is it that this work is someone else's problem? We have more need of contributors than inspectors. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:41, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as List of misers and replace with a dab page (The Miser, Pete Miser, The Miser by Vasily Pashkevich) Clarityfiend (talk) 20:39, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming the page would make the article's problems worse rather than better. It would encourage editors to add yet more examples when what the article needs more is general commentary on the broad concept. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:08, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If people want sources then they should roll up their sleeves and add some per our editing policy. AFD is not clean up but I have added several sources to the article to show willing and demonstrate how it is done. There is not the slightest case for deletion and we see none of the due diligence prescribed by our deletion process — the talk page for the article has not been used since 2007. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:18, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am happy to withdraw my delete based on the Colonel's improvements, which have added more context and citations to make this more than what was essentially an unsourced list. Mandsford (talk) 13:19, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep More than a simple dictionary definition, and no one ever reads wiktionary anyway. Dream Focus 13:39, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you there. If there was a link to it on the sidebar or anywhere else on the page, the old "transwiki to Wiktionary" would be okay. However, it's difficult to reach, seems to have no reason to exist other than as a distraction, and I've never actually known anyone who ever looked at it. For that matter, who looks at Wikinews? One might as well say "maybe if you Google it you'll find what you're looking for". Mandsford (talk) 18:52, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nice rescue job, Colonel Warden. As it stands the article is encyclopedic and sourced, as well as being interesting. It also avoids BLP problems by listing only dead people and fictional people. It may be necessary to keep an eye on the page to make sure it isn't used to violate BLP. --MelanieN (talk) 03:09, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. -12.7.202.2 (talk) 19:33, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:OUTCOMES - notable concepts are always notable - and WP:HEY - improved and rescued articles should be kept. Bearian (talk) 21:47, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: article looks to have good sources. Miser is a classic archetype along with hero, villain, mentor, damsel... if none of those are red links, then this shouldn't be either. Arskwad (talk) 06:58, 12 May 2010 (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.