Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Document
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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:11, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Document[edit]
- Document (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article is an essay (apparently writen by employees of Xerox) based on original research, as is outlined on its talk page. Removing the original research from the document would leave us with little more than a dictionary definition, so I propose that deletion is the best option. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:49, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- KeepMore than a dictionary definition or essay, this is a well referenced article on a notable subject. Documents existed before the Xerox company, and are notable based on pre-Xerox references. Any spamvertising or POV material can be edited out. Edison (talk) 18:58, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well referenced? Are we looking at the same article? Anyway, this is the pre-Xerox version of the article, if anyone is interested. That version has no references, so I'm not sure we have something to go back to. If someone was willing to rewrite the article from scratch, of course, there would be no need for deletion. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:06, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You are confusing the AFD process with the editing process. If you dislike this edit from 2007, the edit history allows you to return to the version before that edit. "Documents" are clearly a notable subject. The version before the 2007 revision by "some folks at Xerox" had remained about the same for 5 years, since 2002. Rather than "Delete and start from scratch," you have the option of editing the article, and tagging it as needing references. You can be bold and go ahead with your proposed revision, or more wisely you can gain consensus for it on the article talk page first, so you do not get accused of vandalism for removing text and references. Did you raise your concerns on the article's talk page, before racing to AFD? A little search in a public library or at Google Book search would reference most of what is in the older version of the article. Edison (talk) 19:13, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I tagged it as reading like an essay back in November, but I take your point. I misjudged this and am happy for the discussion to be closed. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:37, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You are confusing the AFD process with the editing process. If you dislike this edit from 2007, the edit history allows you to return to the version before that edit. "Documents" are clearly a notable subject. The version before the 2007 revision by "some folks at Xerox" had remained about the same for 5 years, since 2002. Rather than "Delete and start from scratch," you have the option of editing the article, and tagging it as needing references. You can be bold and go ahead with your proposed revision, or more wisely you can gain consensus for it on the article talk page first, so you do not get accused of vandalism for removing text and references. Did you raise your concerns on the article's talk page, before racing to AFD? A little search in a public library or at Google Book search would reference most of what is in the older version of the article. Edison (talk) 19:13, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well referenced? Are we looking at the same article? Anyway, this is the pre-Xerox version of the article, if anyone is interested. That version has no references, so I'm not sure we have something to go back to. If someone was willing to rewrite the article from scratch, of course, there would be no need for deletion. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:06, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support closure per nom.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:15, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, the idea of a document is definitely worthy of an article. Nyttend (talk) 04:15, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, the word "document" is heavily used and should be described. I agree that it appears that research from Xerox is the primary source of reference, which makes it worse. This makes it appear to be an internal research paper, just copied over. The article could be deliberately shortened to align it with the multiple core meanings of "document". I have looked for suitable references, and it is a bit difficult to find books that have studied the topic Elcidia (talk) 13:51, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a broken link in the current version of the article (now reverted back to the pre-Xerox version), which appears to be a copy of this journal article. It could be a useful source. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:01, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 29 January 2011 (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.