249:!" 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.
202:
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.
223:. 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.
201:
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
660:
to the disambiguation page. This is simply a dicdef and I don't see any potential of it becoming anything more than that. Seriously, what new content can be introduced here? "List of VIPs by country"? "Status required to become a VIP"? It would have more chances if VIP were an official status, but
151:. 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.
77:
407:
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) -
475:. 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.
72:
137:
389:
Actions speak louder than words and words is all we've been getting ever since the first nomination. If it shouldn't be too hard, then why doesn't anyone expand the article?
456:
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?
661:
it's not, it's just a different word for a "celebrity". Yes, the word "VIP" may be notable due to its heavy use, but so is also "AFAIK". Do we have an article on "
147:- 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
471:
497:. 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
104:
99:
108:
91:
669:
650:
642:
636:
599:
579:
567:
541:
518:
510:
509:. (<--Note that that disambiguation page links to a Wiktionary article on the word frailty--which is what should be done with VIP too.)
484:
465:
457:
451:
429:
415:
397:
384:
361:
326:
321:
296:
279:
258:
232:
211:
192:
173:
160:
56:
54:
440:
17:
442:, so there is plenty of potential for expansion here. The article is currently a stub, but deleting it won't improve our coverage.
532:
Notable and useful. I've added a reference for the RAF cite. (Reference could be better, but it's better than "citation needed")
380:
357:
684:
36:
95:
336:
There is no deadline for improvements. probably a
Knowledge (XXG) article can be written about most such phrases.
595:
683:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
646:
514:
506:
461:
317:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
470:
Well, for one thing, the special treatment of VIPs in medicine (called VIP syndrome) has been studied closely
306:. I suspect this can be improved, despite the lack of progress, and a worst it can be merged to a dab page. -
413:
52:
87:
62:
608:
591:
275:
624:
666:
576:
479:
446:
394:
307:
293:
409:
374:
351:
254:
207:
170:
156:
473:
632:
537:
425:
369:
not trendy enough to have been impoved to date, but common sense says should not be too hard.
49:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
558:
561:, it seems impossible that the conclusion of the AfD should be different this time around. -
502:
572:
148:
563:
271:
228:
620:
476:
443:
390:
616:
612:
370:
347:
343:
250:
203:
188:
152:
628:
533:
498:
421:
125:
224:
338:
183:
662:
289:
241:
This pretty much translates to "keep this article because I just
677:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
439:
per DGG. THe study of VIPs is a well-studied topic in academia
285:
270:
this is a notable term in common usage. Don't fear the stubs.
78:
Articles for deletion/Very
Important Person (2nd nomination)
346:) 04:50, 17 February 2009 (UTC) repeated accidentally.
132:
121:
117:
113:
169:
to its dab page. Knowledge (XXG) is not a dictionary.
549:It went through AfD back then, and the results was
619:. Verifiable means exactly that easily locatable
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
687:). No further edits should be made to this page.
493:is yet another example of a usage of the term
623:and it is an encyclopedic topic. Tag it and
8:
641:How can this be fixed? Using what sources?
501:. Otherwise, by your logic, the sources on
73:Articles for deletion/Very Important Person
181:There is no deadline for improvements.
70:
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
69:
393:get that opportunity every month!
24:
420:RAF reference found and added.
284:We don't have an article about
1:
670:14:10, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
651:15:30, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
637:01:42, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
621:reliable sources can be found
600:18:47, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
580:14:10, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
568:20:41, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
542:03:41, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
519:12:30, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
485:07:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
466:22:41, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
452:14:48, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
430:03:41, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
416:09:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
398:23:18, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
385:06:47, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
362:06:47, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
327:03:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
297:23:18, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
280:02:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
259:01:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
233:00:57, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
212:01:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
193:00:39, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
174:23:50, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
161:23:06, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
57:02:09, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
505:would support an article on
245:there are sources out there
704:
555:keep pending improvements
680:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
68:AfDs for this article:
589:as a notable topic. —
149:dictionary definition
88:Very Important Person
63:Very Important Person
44:The result was
482:
449:
325:
695:
682:
566:
503:frailty syndrome
480:
447:
315:
313:
135:
129:
111:
34:
703:
702:
698:
697:
696:
694:
693:
692:
691:
685:deletion review
678:
658:Strong redirect
592:LinguistAtLarge
562:
309:
131:
102:
86:
83:
66:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
701:
699:
690:
689:
673:
672:
667:Admiral Norton
655:
654:
653:
643:160.39.213.152
602:
584:
583:
582:
577:Admiral Norton
544:
527:
526:
525:
524:
523:
522:
521:
511:160.39.213.152
458:160.39.213.152
434:
433:
432:
402:
401:
400:
395:Admiral Norton
364:
329:
301:
300:
299:
294:Admiral Norton
264:
263:
262:
261:
236:
235:
217:
216:
215:
214:
196:
195:
176:
142:
141:
82:
81:
80:
75:
67:
65:
60:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
700:
688:
686:
681:
675:
674:
671:
668:
664:
659:
656:
652:
648:
644:
640:
639:
638:
634:
630:
626:
622:
618:
614:
610:
606:
603:
601:
598:
597:
593:
588:
585:
581:
578:
574:
571:
570:
569:
565:
560:
556:
552:
548:
545:
543:
539:
535:
531:
528:
520:
516:
512:
508:
504:
500:
496:
492:
488:
487:
486:
483:
478:
474:
472:
469:
468:
467:
463:
459:
455:
454:
453:
450:
445:
441:
438:
435:
431:
427:
423:
419:
418:
417:
414:
411:
406:
403:
399:
396:
392:
388:
387:
386:
382:
379:
376:
372:
368:
365:
363:
359:
356:
353:
349:
345:
341:
340:
335:
334:
330:
328:
323:
319:
314:
312:
305:
302:
298:
295:
291:
287:
283:
282:
281:
277:
273:
269:
266:
265:
260:
256:
252:
248:
244:
240:
239:
238:
237:
234:
230:
226:
222:
219:
218:
213:
209:
205:
200:
199:
198:
197:
194:
190:
186:
185:
180:
177:
175:
172:
168:
165:
164:
163:
162:
158:
154:
150:
146:
139:
134:
127:
123:
119:
115:
110:
106:
101:
97:
93:
89:
85:
84:
79:
76:
74:
71:
64:
61:
59:
58:
55:
53:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
679:
676:
657:
604:
590:
586:
554:
550:
546:
529:
499:VIP syndrome
494:
491:VIP syndrome
490:
436:
404:
377:
366:
354:
337:
332:
331:
310:
303:
267:
246:
242:
220:
182:
178:
166:
144:
143:
50:Juliancolton
45:
43:
31:
28:
609:WP:OUTCOMES
547:Speedy keep
391:3000 people
564:Lilac Soul
272:Kingturtle
477:Sjakkalle
444:Sjakkalle
308:A Man In
247:somewhere
481:(Check!)
448:(Check!)
405:Redirect
381:contribs
371:Casliber
358:contribs
348:Casliber
322:past ops
318:conspire
251:Otto4711
204:Otto4711
171:MuZemike
167:Redirect
153:Otto4711
138:View log
629:Bearian
559:WP:SNOW
534:Simon12
507:frailty
422:Simon12
105:protect
100:history
625:fix it
615:, and
573:WP:CCC
557:. Per
553:, not
145:Delete
133:delete
109:delete
663:AFAIK
311:Bl♟ck
290:AFAIK
225:Cool3
136:) – (
126:views
118:watch
114:links
16:<
647:talk
633:talk
617:WP:N
613:WP:V
607:per
605:Keep
596:Talk
587:Keep
551:keep
538:talk
530:Keep
515:talk
489:The
462:talk
437:Keep
426:talk
375:talk
367:Keep
352:talk
344:talk
333:Keep
304:Keep
276:talk
268:Keep
255:talk
243:know
229:talk
221:Keep
208:talk
189:talk
179:Keep
157:talk
122:logs
96:talk
92:edit
46:keep
665:"?
495:VIP
410:Mgm
339:DGG
288:or
286:FYI
184:DGG
48:. –
649:)
635:)
627:.
611:,
594:•
575:.
540:)
517:)
464:)
428:)
383:)
360:)
320:-
292:.
278:)
257:)
231:)
210:)
191:)
159:)
124:|
120:|
116:|
112:|
107:|
103:|
98:|
94:|
645:(
631:(
536:(
513:(
460:(
424:(
412:|
378:·
373:(
355:·
350:(
342:(
324:)
316:(
274:(
253:(
227:(
206:(
187:(
155:(
140:)
130:(
128:)
90:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.