Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of boondoggles

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 Delete per subjectivity problems which lead to POV issues. Davewild (talk) 11:53, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of boondoggles[edit]

This article appears to consist only of material which was removed from White elephant for being insufficiently cited (diff: [1] see also the White Elephant article's edit history). There is no definition of what a 'boondoggle' is, how they differ from a White Elephant or why the same material can be used in two articles. As such, it appears to be a duplication of the White elephant article created in order to get around what seem to me and another editor to be valid concerns about the material in that article. A better way forward would be to restore the examples which can be cited to White Elephant with appropriate citations. --Nick Dowling (talk) 00:46, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge back into white elephant per Nick Dowling. No reason for this page to exist separately. Buckshot06 (talk) 02:36, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've spent far too much time on this material already. Deletion will prevent me from being tempted to expend any more effort. Wtroopwept (talk) 02:47, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Dowling is right. Merge the instances which can be sourced back into 'White Elephant', a much more common and universal term. I looked for a source for the Millenium Dome being described as such and found one easily (A Guardian article and John Prescott quote). Nick mallory (talk) 05:10, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the decision of whether something is a "boondoggle" or not is entirely subjective, thus giving the page an unavoidable case of the WP:POVes. Lankiveil (talk) 05:13, 26 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Delete only 6 out 26 citations use the term boondoggle. This article is full of original research and pov issues. Ridernyc (talk) 08:52, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A boondoggle need not be the same thing as a white elephant as they are essentially different concepts. Here's an example of a notable and well-sourced boondoggle which is not a white elephant: biofuel. A good example of a white elephant but not boondoggle which will be familiar at this time of year, is that ugly thing that your aunt gave you. So, the issue just a matter of sorting one from the other which is a matter of content editing, not deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:34, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an obvious inherent violation of WP:NPOV. *** Crotalus *** 12:43, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as subjective POV. Whether a scheme is a ultimately a waste of effort and money is a matter of perspective. To write off the Great Eastern and Yamato battleships for example is a huge oversimplification. This list cannot cover the full story of these projects in a fair, encyclopaedic and balanced manner, but makes a POV judgement on them in its title. Benea (talk) 18:23, 26 December 2007 (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.