Talk:Dump job

ProD

   The proposed-deletion tag claims the accompanying article is "a misplaced dictionary entry".
   I agree that it does begin with a dictdef. But i doubt that it was i who originated the notion that "A good article generally starts with a dictdef in the lead sent", and even if that is not a paraphrase of something i read, the fourth bullet point in the relevant MoS discussion

If its subject is definable, then the first sentence should give a concise definition.

surely supports it as an approximation, and counsels care in throwing about the phrase "misplaced dictionary entry".
   This article's prose is certainly more than a dictdef, as the 'graph

Such cases often entail extra forensics difficulties. They also suggest to investigators theories that involve the death having occurred in the context of otherwise illegal or scandalous circumstances, panic, and/or awareness of either whoever left the body or whoever they seek to protect that the death is criminal; or some combination of these possibilities.

clearly is appropriate for the explication of the practice's significance (a plausibly encyclopedic topic) and not appropriate to a dictdef. (It's not obvious whether i knew that when i created the WP article 6½ years ago, but if not, i did a year later when i created the Wiktionary article and based the entry for the body sense (1.) on only the lead 'graph of the Police usage section.)
   I think starting with a more justified discussion (which i lack the personal interest to join) of whether

there is a clear topic, or
the article should be split

into two that are each unified by occupation, or
into two where one is unified by linguistics (as Fuck is and as Nigger is) and one by psychology,

might well result in concludeing that

either split would do violence to a complex web of interrelationships that would become less dispensible if the (6½-year-old undisputed but neglected) stub tag i included from the start were taken seriously.

IMO it would also dissipate the confusion between the existing article and a dictionary entry.
   In any case, AfD can settle the matter better than the nom and i, so i remove the ProD tag, and leave the matter to colleagues, as long as this section is appropriately ref'd in any ensuing discussion.
--Jerzy•t 10:15 & 16:03, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

If I thought the article's prose was certainly more than a dictionary entry, then I wouldn't have PROD'd it—I don't think I was casually throwing around the phrase "misplaced dictionary entry". I saw it as a dictionary entry with a rather verbose etymology. But maybe you're right: it is plausible that it deserves its own entry. Perhaps it is just a stub which can be metamorphosed into the next Fuck or Nigger. Anyway, I really didn't think the PROD would be controversial. Since it apparently is, I am not interested in fighting for deletion.

Instead, I made some edits that I hope were helpful. Dump jobs are not my area of expertise, so I'll just do what I can to entice other editors to come and expand this. Cheers. Braincricket (talk) 13:21, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

   I'll confess that "throwing about" is a bit pungent for the situation, and your point about it being a proposal is well taken. I thank you for your constructive contribs to this impromptu creation.
--Jerzy•t 16:55, 17 December 2011 (UTC)