Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Failure of imagination
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was KEEP:8k, 2r, 1d. Anon IP vote discounted. -Splash 00:43, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious phrase. Sure it was used in the 9/11 report but in the same way that "brake failure" is used to describe the failure of brakes.--Lee Hunter 16:29, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I was just reading Bruce Schneier's July 15 CryptoGram. He links to Failure of imagination. Anyway, the phrase has a particular meaning in security now. dbenbenn | talk 16:41, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect with Argument from ignorance, which already describes the fallacy of failure of imagination as a form of this logical fallacy. --FOo 17:02, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep — high-profile external link (so now the first sight of Wikipedia for a lot of new users is a warning that the article that brought them to Wikipedia "is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy" — oh, that's real good PR) ➥the Epopt 17:49, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Please don't berate your fellow editors for following policy. --FOo 18:39, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no policy that says an article good enough to be cited outside Wikipedia must be nominated for deletion. ➥the Epopt 23:16, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a policy which says that users should nominate pages for deletion if they believe they meet the deletion criteria. Berating them for doing just this shows a lack of respect for their good faith. --FOo 03:34, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no policy that says an article good enough to be cited outside Wikipedia must be nominated for deletion. ➥the Epopt 23:16, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Please don't berate your fellow editors for following policy. --FOo 18:39, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, I think it has a specific 9/11-related meaning beyond the obvious one that the article explains well and Google confirms. Dcarrano 22:35, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep It has a distinct meaning, and we should remove the VfD tag as soon as possible. Themindset 23:25, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- We can't remove the VfD tag until this vote is through. --FOo 03:34, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. It's 9/11 context makes it of encyclopedic value. -- Titoxd 00:01, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Normally would be weak keep, but the link per Dbenbenn and Epopt means we should try to make this a better article. Almafeta 16:35, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Argument from ignorance. - Ar 14:01, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. I agree with Titoxd's statement. -- Judson 23:27, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Edit. Term clearly has come in common usage - article however ehidibits a strong bias outside the scope of discussing the issue of "failure of imagination".
- Keep. Little to add. --Kizor 17:15, 22 July 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.