Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Footlocker (luggage)

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The result was withdrawn. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 20:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Footlocker (luggage)

Footlocker (luggage) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Falls under WP:DICDEF. I don't think there is much room for expansion. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 09:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

• I beg to differ, I came to Wikipedia to look up information on World War II Footlockers and find the article is pending deletion. Not just information about WWII footlockers can be added but information about footlockers in general such as the different types and uses. Footlockers were used by the military in wars like WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, ect. ect. and they were also used by civilians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.105.15.249 (talk)
• It was I who created the initial extremely short article. I did so thinking there could be room for such an article, along with articles about other kinds of luggage I saw, such as suitcases, briefcases, trunks, and the like, which have expanded in varying degrees. I do not have the knowledge or access to sources to expand it myself, but I thought someone else might.

  The article has now been considerably expanded with exactly the kind of detailed information that would interest those looking for this topic, and I think surely this should remove the argument for deletion now. So what happens, anyway, when someone marks an article for deletion, but someone else then disagrees?

  It seems to me that almost any article, however brief and rudimentary, has the potential for expansion by someone with the right knowledge or access to sources. And that is exactly what makes such articles valuable. If an extremely short stub seems worthy of deletion because it's nothing more than a brief dictionary-type definition, then it may still in most cases be worth keeping as the seed for possible future expansion by an expert on the subject.

  That's the way I see it, anyway. M.J.E. (talk) 17:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Major plot device in mysteries and especially in A Few Good Men. Come on, folks, at least look at the Ghits. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 18:57, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not entirely convinced, but if there's significant interest in expanding, I don't want to impede the article's growth. Withdrawing for now; thanks for the helpful input. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 20:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

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.