Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Missed connection (2nd nomination)

:{{la|Missed connection}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Missed_connection_(2nd_nomination) Stats])

:({{Find sources|Missed connection}})

Unsourced dicdef, nothing but lists. Kept at last AFD, but neither keep was policy based. I see no sources that discuss this at length, just sources that use the term in passing. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 07:59, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• delete An obvious definition padded out like a bad high school essay. Mangoe (talk) 11:27, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
• Keep Adamc714 (talk) 15:37, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

::Capricious comments in AFD discussions without any rationale are dismissed. Toddst1 (talk) 15:59, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• Delete: per nom and Mangoe. I've removed the WP:OR lists, but there isn't anything encyclopedic left. Standard WP:NAD. Toddst1 (talk) 15:59, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
• Delete: Delet per WP:Notability. User:SmartyPantsKid User talk:SmartyPantsKid —Preceding undated comment added 17:14, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
• Delete — Agree with comments on WP:NAD. This topic fails WP:GNG as an encyclopedic topic. JFHJr (㊟) 21:25, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep It's only 5 weeks since this was a clear keep so this seems to be case of WP:DELAFD, "It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hopes of getting a different outcome." Warden (talk) 21:50, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

::That would be more applicable if the nominator had participated in the previous discussion. As it is, there is only one common participant, and the first discussion had only four participant of which one had no other edit. I don't see a problem with letting this run its course. Mangoe (talk) 22:45, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

:::* The nomination makes it clear that the previous AFD was noticed. The nominator has been here for years and so ought to be well aware that the place to challenge recent closes is WP:DRV. Just starting another AFD so soon is blatant disruption. Warden (talk) 23:03, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - I'm sympathetic to the nomination and the article doesn't seem to have much there, but Warden has a point. Is there a reason this wasn't taken to DRV? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:05, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
• Delete - This article definitely needs a better name, since most of the results come up with people missing plane flights and such. I'm not sure if the concept meets WP:N (if I had to say, I'd say yes, since there is some coverage), but under the current title it definitely doesn't. Ansh666 00:49, 17 May 2013 (UTC) Keep since it's been improved enough. My concern about the title stands, but I guess it works. Ansh666 13:14, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

• Deletion review: I have raised the issue of continuing this discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Active#Missed connection. Mangoe (talk) 13:04, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
• Keep Since we're here, we can discuss it here. I do not consider this a disruptive nomination, though it would have been better to wait 6 months than 6 weeks. If it had been taken to DR, the probably result would have been that DR is not afd2. . I do consider the article reasonable, and expandable, and sourceable. Common themes is art and life are suitable topics for articles. If it needs further content and sourcing, the solution is to write it. Of out 4 million articles, probably a few percent need deletion, but most or almost all of them need further work. Lots of WP articles start out as fairly haive essays, and then grow further. DGG ( talk ) 13:22, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
• Procedural closure  This needs to be promptly closed.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:37, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

:*Why? There is nothing inherently wrong with a second AFD only six weeks later. There is nothing saying I must take this to DRV. There's far more discussion here than there was in the last AFD, so to just step right in and close it down would be counterproductive. I see no way in which my AFD is disruptive or against process. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:57, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

• Keep At the previous AFD the nomination waved towards a policy but did not give as much as a word as to why it might apply and the "keeps" were not policy-based but they were not against policy either. The current nomination was of doubtful validity at the time it was made but the argument certainly does not apply to the currently improved article. There is now sufficient reliable-source coverage and "Unsourced dicdef, nothing but lists" is now a wholly inappropriate rationale. Thincat (talk) 09:47, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
• Comment Wow, I didn't realize this article was actually being improved. That so rarely occurs when people are clamoring for a "keep", ya know. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 10:18, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
• Clearly shouldn't be deleted, since this is a plausible search term. If not kept, should be redirected or disambiguated rather than deleted. Both nominations were fairly clear cases of using AfD for cleanup imo.—S Marshall T/C 12:04, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
• Keep this is a damn fine article currently. I do understand the article was a lot worse when nominated, so no harm done. Looks like an AFD success story. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:54, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
• Keep This fundamentally goes beyond a definition article surpassing any arguments for NOT or NEO. What the delete camp does not really directly contest is that GNG has been met by some very important sources. Mkdw^talk 22:34, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

• Keep Firstly, I see nothing wrong with re-nominating a page after an AfD with little community participation and opinions based on non-policy based observations. Secondly, the page as it stands now is no longer a WP:DICDEF and the sources found and added to the page clearly show that it meets WP:GNG. J04n(talk page) 11:56, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
• Keep There's a lot of reliable sources currently listed in the article. Seems to pass WP:GNG Transcendence (talk) 20:44, 24 May 2013 (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.