Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cutting (in line)

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 keep. Please defer merge related discussion to article talk. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:23, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cutting (in line)

Banal subject matter. Definitionally unencyclopedic. In the event it's not deleted, please merge into Getting dressed or Picking the nose. -- Y not? 05:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, Getting dressed or Picking the nose are now no longer redlinks. =) Wl219 03:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unencycopedic. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Unencyclopedic is a 'cover-all' term WP:UNENCYC... shouldn't be the basis of a argument. - Kneel17 05:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, "unencyclopedic" refers to our basic text, Wikipedia:Five pillars. Sometimes you need to step away from technical verifiability, and ask yourself whether this makes any sense. -- Y not? 13:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete This is something notable, in my opinion...you see this all the time. But seeing something all the time isn't a policy, obviously. So I think the best thing to do would be to interwiki (Wikitionary, I'd say). Giggy _U^CP 06:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak delete~~. Contains mostly OR. But some of this language ("transaction time", "social sanctions") makes me wonder if there was ever a serious sociological or economic study on the phenomena. I don't think the behavior is as inherently banal as the nominator does. Would support keeping if anyone digs up a peer-reviewed article like Line cutting: an economic analysis of social norms. Failing that, delete. Cool Hand Luke 07:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest Possible Delete I wish unencyclopedic material was a CSD category Rackabello 07:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest Possible Keep Sources exist. Would merge into queue area or Queueing theory. Most of the delete comments smack of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Wl219 07:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Followup Actually, know what, if this doesn't survive AfD, let me move it to my userspace. I'll save the sourced parts and merge it into queue area and junk the rest. Wl219 07:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral I'm definitely opposed to this, but I cant find any (solid) policy grounds to voice my opposition. Could this fit under WP:NOT#DICT as in this is basically a dictionary definition and some examples? Corpx 08:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Construe it as violation of pillar one, see above. -- Y not? 13:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I try to avoid using that (just like WP:IAR) because its a subjective thing Corpx 16:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename Cutting in line. While most of it is OR and should be drastically trimmed, there is one study referenced. According to this, it was done by Stanley Milgram, of six degrees of separation fame. A closer look at the Tasty Research story shows the info about his research paper. Also, a Fox News story reports one woman attacked another for cutting ahead of her at the Magic Kingdom. National variations and queuing theory indicate that there is serious room for expansion. (You don't mind if I cut in ahead of you, Binguyen, do you? ... Back of the line, you! Oh, all right.) Clarityfiend 09:23, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per my comment above because it apparently has been the topic of more than one scientific study. Cool Hand Luke 18:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Abstain I Abstain Weakly. 24.44.96.29 13:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- LOL!
  - Comment. Have the courage of your convictions. Abstain strongly weekly. Clarityfiend 17:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Let's not delete the baby with the bath water. :) I read an article in the New York Times about cars cutting in line at the Seattle ferry, and that counts as a reasonable application. This isn't just childish jabberwock, though it needs improvement to a more mature tone and organization. Shalom ^Hello 21:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Perfectly notable and encyclopedic. It just needs help. If Wikipedia can have an article on nose picking, it can have an article on cutting in line. I agree, deletes do seem to come from a WP:IDONTLIKEIT direction. -- Thesocialistesq/M.lesocialiste 22:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep we do in fact have an article on nose picking as we should, and this article establishes notability by citing several reliable sources, and meets other relevant policies. "banal" and "unencylopedic" are non-arguments. — brighterorange (talk) 02:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/mergeas per Wl219 07:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC). I bet there are plenty of papers on this in several major different fields, starting with economics and sociology. Banality is not trivilalty.--Victor falk 14:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well-written and referenced -- room for expansion and more references, but perfectly encyclopaedic as is. --Zeborah 21:16, 24 July 2007 (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.