Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kessler-Standard

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 of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 11:31, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Kessler-Standard

Unsourced, can't find anyone using the term on google. Looks like original research; term invented by R. Kessler, article created by User:Rkessler06. Deprodded without comment. Weregerbil 15:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete No original research.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  15:49, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom & (aeropagitica).--blue520 15:59, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

• This article does refer to something began in August 2005 at Johns Hopkins University's Bologna Campus. Although it is not on a clearly academic topic, it is something that became a norm of this campus of the university. If you ask any of the 180 students at the Bologna Center about this term, they will know what it refers to exactly. The source is the creator of the Standard, but of course he is the one who came up with this norm that the rest of this campus of the university began to use and accept as a norm. Therefore it should not be deleted, but rather it would seem as students from this campus disperse it may become a widely used Standard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pedro223 (talk • contribs) 18:14, May 15, 2006

• This opinion is seconded, as this Standard has become very important e-mail operating procedure that is destined to live on.it should not be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KatYank222 (talk • contribs) 18:36, May 15, 2006

• Delete - original research. Subjects must be verifiable by reliable sources. When people outside this local group write articles about this standard, we'll have an article about it. Wikipedia isn't the place to promote new ways of doing things. FreplySpang (talk) 18:59, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

KEEP! It even became quotable among the whole Bologna community... it is making its circles, and the "editor" of the article is not the founder of the standard. It is true, he started the first anti-spam email, but we named and created the standard! tania —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.174.190.59 (talk • contribs) 19:40, May 15, 2006.

Please see comments regarding this article on the home page. I can confirm that this standard is currently applicable in Rome and Washington, DC, and further comment on this standard should be expected. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.18.136.106 (talk • contribs) 19:48, May 15, 2006.

• Delete - Get real. If as academics you want to use wikipedia as a viable source of information there is no reason to add your personal slang. That is what the - urban dictionary was created for. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.18.136.107 (talk • contribs) 19:59, May 15, 2006.
• Delete Unverifiable, original research, vanity. -- Kicking222 20:40, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete A piece of slang common among a small campus of 180 people qualifies as something made up in school. - Fan1967 21:22, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

KEEP!!! this fits all of the wikipedia standards and when has wiki fought against the inclusion of term developing in pop culture? if pages like those for nobel prize winner Bob Mundell includes things like his appearances on Letterman then surely this is equally worthy. just because the term hasn't spread to your area of the world yet does not mean you should shoot it down. even terms like hetero-normativity and flexual had to begin somewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.18.136.74 (talk • contribs)

• Comment Wikipedia is constantly fighting against the inclusion of terms that are "developing". Come back when they have developed. Fan1967 23:30, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. It's incredibly unverifiable, and from the comments of the article's supporters it seems that this is a term used in only one small portion of the world. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 22:14, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Original research. DarthVader 22:41, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I do not see how this article could be said to correspond to the oft-sited definition of original research, it seems to me to be a report of an already-existing standard if people are already using it. I fail to see how it matters how small the "portion of the world" is in which it is being used - Wikipedia has articles on organisations who's membership is less than 200 and can still be considered de rigeur...— Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.18.136.106 (talk • contribs)

• Comment There are groups of less than 200 listed here (example, the United States Senate, which has only 100). However, the issue of notability is relevant, in that they are groups that many people have heard of. This article, on the other hand, is about a catch-phrase used by less than 200, and only known to those 200. If this article stays, then Wikipedia is opening the welcome mat to every catch-phrase or saying that crops up in any high school, university, dorm or workplace in the world. Fan1967 19:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as WP:NN, no evidence of notability beyond that samll campus. --BrownHairedGirl (talk • contribs) 16:32, 17 May 2006 (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.