Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gibb Categories
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. postdlf (talk) 00:30, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Gibb Categories (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 probably unsalvageable, and seems to be written mostly in support of one person's point of view, albeit with multiple sources backing them up. The article likely unsalvageable, and only contains information from 3 sources. Two of those sources appear to be textbooks, and one of the sources is only cited once. redlock (talk) 22:55, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep I don't think an article is ever "unsalvageable", but I get your point. For sure the article needs to be rewritten and would be more effective as a well-written stub. I'm not saying I want to be the one to do it :) (although I would be willing I guess), but I think this article can be fixed. MobileSnail 23:04, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I believe the subject might be notable, but this article isn't good. Might not be a bad idea to userfy it while it's cleaned up. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:35, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep but stubify Gibb categories do appear to be recognized in the field per Google Books, so the concept is notable enough for an article. The current article is badly written but it could be userfied to somebody (who?) or made into a stub pending future improvement. --MelanieN (talk) 23:24, 20 March 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.