Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Very Important Person (2nd nomination)

Very Important Person

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Very Important Person
• Articles for deletion/Very Important Person (2nd nomination)

Very Important Person (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Delete - nominated once for deletion two years ago and kept, but in the intervening two years nothing has emerged to indicate that this is or will ever be anything but a dictionary definition. If there are, as the previous AFD asserts, special protocols associated with various military bodies then articles should be written about them specifically; they do not serve as justification for keeping a dictionary definition article. Otto4711 (talk) 23:06, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

• Redirect to its dab page. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. MuZemike 23:50, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
• Keep There is no deadline for improvements. DGG (talk) 00:39, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

• True, but not even close to the point of the nomination. There are no sources that indicate that this phrase in and of itself passes policies and guidelines. It would be a different matter if there were a plethora of sources out there that established that this was proper for an encyclopedia rather than a dictionary and no one had just bothered to expand the article with them, but there are not. If this is deleted and suddenly someone discovers such sources, then great, recreate the article with proper sourcing that establishes the encyclopedic nature of the topic. But "keep it because someday there might be sources" is not a reasonable rationale. Otto4711 (talk) 01:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. The fact that nothing has happened to this article since the last nomination is frustrating, but there's potential for more than just a dicdef here, if someone will roll up their sleeves. A couple hundred pages link to the article, so someone just needs to fix it. If I can actually find some decent references, I might do the work myself. Cool3 (talk) 00:57, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

• This pretty much translates to "keep this article because I just know there are sources out there somewhere!" That is not the standard for articles. There need to be reliable sources that offer significant coverage of this phrase as a phrase in and of itself. Should such sources materialize following the deletion of this article then the article can be recreated. It's not like the depth of coverage in this article is so great that recreating it with sources would be some great burden, and if it were the deleted article can always be userfied by asking any admin to do it. Otto4711 (talk) 01:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

• Keep this is a notable term in common usage. Don't fear the stubs. Kingturtle (talk) 02:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. I suspect this can be improved, despite the lack of progress, and a worst it can be merged to a dab page. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 03:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

*Keep There is no deadline for improvements. probably a Wikipedia article can be written about most such phrases. DGG (talk) 04:50, 17 February 2009 (UTC) repeated accidentally. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:47, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

• Keep not trendy enough to have been impoved to date, but common sense says should not be too hard. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:47, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
• Redirect to the dab page. I was unable to find sources, but if someone can improve on my googlefu and confirm the Royal Air Force introduced the term it contains more than a dicdef and I would change my vote to keep) - Mgm|^(talk) 09:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
  • RAF reference found and added. Simon12 (talk) 03:41, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per DGG. THe study of VIPs is a well-studied topic in academia [1], so there is plenty of potential for expansion here. The article is currently a stub, but deleting it won't improve our coverage. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:48, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Can you point to any sources from your Google search that support your conclusion that this is a "well-studied topic in academia," rather than just a commonly used term? 160.39.213.152 (talk) 22:41, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Well, for one thing, the special treatment of VIPs in medicine (called VIP syndrome) has been studied closely [2] [3]. I'm afraid that is outside the range of topics I know or can write about, but there is enough material there to convince me that this is something medical professionals are concerned about. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
      • The VIP syndrome is yet another example of a usage of the term VIP. The sources you link to would not support an expansion of the article currently under discussion at all. They would, however, support an article on VIP syndrome. Otherwise, by your logic, the sources on frailty syndrome would support an article on frailty. (<--Note that that disambiguation page links to a Wiktionary article on the word frailty--which is what should be done with VIP too.) 160.39.213.152 (talk) 12:30, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Notable and useful. I've added a reference for the RAF cite. (Reference could be better, but it's better than "citation needed") Simon12 (talk) 03:41, 18 February 2009 (UTC)