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 delete fishhead64 05:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stairlift Trivia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

The very definition of WP:NOT a collection of indiscriminate information that is unsourced and unencyclopedic. Judging by the username of the creator, this might be some sort of odd WP:COI issue as well. PROD contested, so here we are. Delete with prejudice. --Kinu ^t/_c 07:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• delete - no cites and looks like nonsense to me. the_undertow ^talk 07:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete - Trivia within actual articles is bad enough, let alone articles devoted to trivia. We may as well have a page about Welcome Back Kotter trivia or Tandem bicycle trivia. --Bongwarrior 07:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Or even Trivia trivia. MER-C 08:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Do Not Delete This is support information. Very little sources of information exist about stairlifts as a pure subject. This page refers to articles and mentions of stairlift in various media to show they are an important type of aid.

The word "trivia" is defined inter alia in The Wikipedia itself and it should not be used wrongly to justify dismissal of researched work. Th epag etitle can be changed but th econtent should remain and be enhanced. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Stairlift (talk • contribs) 07:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

• Delete per nom. MER-C 08:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Stairlift into trash bin per nom. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-24 11:21Z
• Delete I've seen everything now. A cocktail called "Stairlift Swizzler". Oh, my. Anyway, should be preserved for posterity somewhere as a perfect example of WP:NOT. EliminatorJR ^Talk 14:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps BJAODN? Iridescenti seems to have that one. =^_^= --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 15:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt but surely warrants a move to BJAODN. Normally I object to anyone AfD'ing an article within 2 minutes of its creation, but this one's indefensible - iridescenti (talk to me!)
• Delete. This is information better contained in the stairlift article, but it needs to be distilled to no end first. I'm not calling WP:COI - the creator of the article appears to pretty much be a fan of the devices, rather than somebody with a direct interest. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge in the small amount of useful content. I do not share the view that it's nonsense, but certainly not an appropriate article. DGG 03:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The IMDB has Trivia sections in many of its pages. The stairlift trivia can be viewed in the same context.

Much of the IMDB information is educational, for example, how to pronounce Joaquin Phoenix's first name. Stairlifts have been on sale for over 75 years but "stairlift" had no definition until a few years ago.

There are no text books about stairlifts but the page shows links to historical facts. Someone researching stairlifts as pure subject may find this helpful especially if the main stairlift page has a link to the addendum page.

Compared with trivia such as someone posting their fave pop song, or detailing every porn star who ever existed, on the Wikipedia, stairlift facts are not trivial at all. The comment "I've seen everything now. A cocktail called "Stairlift Swizzler" illustrates the point that the Wikipedia has unique information on a popular subject. The page should not be deleted. Renamed perhaps, not deleted. 86.131.66.165 04:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Someone posting their fave pop song or detailing every porn star who ever existed would find their article deleted very quickly unless they could provide multiple independent non-trivial sources for them — iridescenti (talk to me!) 20:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Try "Me and Bobby McGee" as a pop song example and Claudia Ferrari as a porn star example. The Wikipedia is replete with such things and replete with hypocrisy. Frankly The Wikipedia doesn't seem to know what it wants to be.

The Wikipedia definition of "Stairlift" existed before the stairlift page was created in 2006. It really doesn't matter what the creator's interest is provided it is not a vanity article or to promote personal interests. There have been a number of attempts to introduce spam on the main stairlift page and such entries were edited out by various contributors. The list of manufacturers does not favour any individual concern and no hyperlinks were used so as to avoid anyone gaining competitive advantage. The "trivia" page provides additional information on the topic of stairlifts without any bias. There is too much information to place on the main page but for someone who wants to research how stairlifts have evolved and are fast become a commodity there is a lot of information. It touches on Art, Humour, Technology and other subject areas. If it is deleted there will be no other source of such information in one place anywhere in the world. It is likely that sometime in the future one or more Wikipedia editors will need a stairlift. Those who use them already will understand the humour and the importance of assistive devices. Stairlift 05:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I can't tell whether this is serious or not, but I'll bite. Let's compare. From Me and Bobby McGee: "Joplin's version topped the charts to become only the second posthumous number one single in rock & roll history ... ." From this article: "A number of stairlift animations have appeared on the internet, one showing a stairlift and passenger travelling over a giant roller coaster, with the passenger's hair standing on end after the ride." One of these is encyclopedic; the other is not. The purpose of Wikipedia is not and never has been to provide random trivial information. It is to provide reliably sourced facts that are encyclopedic and contextual in nature. Just because it's true and exists doesn't mean it belongs here. I refer you to the first bullet at WP:ENC. --Kinu ^t/_c 15:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• At this point, Stairlift, I feel it prudent to refer you to WP:PORNBIO for Claudia Ferrari, and in general, give WP:WAX a good read. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:29, 26 April 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.