Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Importance

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 Interwiki redirect. MBisanz ^talk 00:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Importance

As it stands, this is a very short essay on the meaning of a word with examples. It's been around for a year and no one has been able to source it. As Wikipedia is not a dictionary, unless it can be shown that this is encyclopedic it should be deleted. dougweller (talk) 19:34, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article appears to be attempting to make the case that there is a particular ~~Internet-specific~~ sociological use of the term that transcends what one might find in a dictionary. That said, it seems to me to be a violation of WP:NOT#OR, and offers no sources to establish any notability for a unique ~~Web-related~~ use of the word.Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:48, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bring back {{wi}}, speedily if possible It seems a few hundred people access the page every day, so we may as well have it link to Wiktionary. Importance may be too general, and perhaps too polysemic, to make an article out of. The article current describes social ranking of people as a measure of importance, including artificial ranking in social media sites. Unless scholarly research exists on either using the name "importance", this article should probably be made into a dictionary link. Gracenotes^T § 20:00, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia should have an article on the subject of importance. It has one on Time which is also impossible to define.Northwestgnome (talk) 20:33, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hm... SI's definition of a second is pretty clear. Time can be mathematically modeled and roughly measured. People have made philosophies based on one's perception of time. On the other hand importance is relative, and I'm not sure what anything beyond a dictionary definition could provide that characterizes its essence. Gracenotes^T § 01:02, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Dougweller's meticulous efforts to source this article have been unsuccessful, so we can safely assume there is nothing sourceable to say. Scaldi (talk) 22:07, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Question Could we possibly merge to Social status? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:57, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Added some tags & links just in case the outcome turns into a keep. If people are checking in regularly, seems like a redirect might work, either to relevance, notability guidelines or social status. What's the convention with this kind of thing? Like, a disambiguation page with Importance (sociology), Importance (Wikipedia) & Importance (search engines), each one a redirect to another article? Franciscrot (talk) 19:01, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think a disambiguation page would be great, with a brief definition of the concept of importance at the top. Northwestgnome (talk) 06:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 03:23, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Restore soft redirect to Wiktionary, possibly with a few disambigs to related articles in Wikipedia. "Importance" is simply too fuzzy of a term to define in this form; most of the Web-2.0 nonsense that's currently here is entirely subjective, and in some cases simply wrong. (Examples, respectively: "Digg.com has become the master of creating importance...", "Importance is now used by almost all community content sites as a method of ranking the members of the community...") Zetawoof_(ζ) 03:41, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An article on one of the many meanings of a word? What about the other senses of the word? Where do you draw the line? --RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 06:32, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Make into a disambig, one that includes a link to the wiktionary article and links to Social status, prestige, Relevance and maybe others. Reyk _YO! 07:28, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dabify — it seems like the best way to go right now, though I would not oppose a restoration of the soft redirect, either. In either case, the article is not written in an encyclopedic way and seems to push only one aspect. MuZemike (talk) 20:59, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Possibly an article can be written here, but the present extremely naive one will not be helpful. A Dab page would take care of the immediate problem. DGG (talk) 06:11, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable subject. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 11:26, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Restore soft redirect. When the soft redirect was replaced a while back, I did not revert because the article looked like it had potential. But the potential has not been met. So this is in essence a Delete opinion of the current contents, but a endorsement of what was there for a long time before the current contents. - TexasAndroid (talk) 04:36, 4 January 2009 (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.