Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Out-of-place artifact

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The result was nomination withdrawn with no outstanding arguments for deletion. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:02, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Out-of-place artifact

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

Fails WP:NEO. I can't find any in depth coverage of the term itself and only a few sources which use it. It isn't covered in depth by any of the sources provided. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 21:52, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep arguments are enough to convince me! Withdrawn with my apologies. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 14:22, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Since Ivan T. Sanderson died in 1973 this neologism is at least 37 years old. I see 200,000 ghits for the phrase "out of place artifacts". I've scrolled through a few pages of them and the article seems to be a good summary of how the term is used. John of Reading (talk) 22:34, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as copyvio or Keep ~~and rewrite~~: ~~Copyvio from [1]~~ - but there are lots of Ghits on "OOPArt", including lots of images, so it looks like a concept that is in widespread use and warrants a Wikipedia article -- Boing! said Zebedee 22:38, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've blanked the copyvio part now, so it's pretty much reduced to stub status -- Boing! said Zebedee 22:43, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, looks like the apparent copyvio was a mirror of an earlier Wikipedia version - another editor has put it back now. So my opinion now changed to just "Keep" -- Boing! said Zebedee 00:06, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the concept itself has a lot of fringe goofiness, and there has been lots of debate about what exactly should go in the article (that still isn't entirely clear), but it's certainly worthy of an article. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 12:23, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep, the concept is defined well enough by a range and number of worthy & independent sources, and the term itself would easily be the most recognisable one in use.--cjllw ʘ TALK 14:17, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the concept of "Out-of-place artifacts" has been and continues to be a subject of discussion on both the web and in print (articles and books) that it certainly deserves an article in Wikipedia. The term "Out-of-place artifact" is the one most used and recognized in regard to this concept and, thus, is the one that should be used in Wikipedia to designate it.Paul H. (talk) 18:08, 18 April 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.