Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cockblock (3rd nomination)

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 WP:SNOW. NAC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 00:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cockblock[edit]

The article is "Small with no potential for growth", and has no chance of being expanded past a few mentions in magazines. Anything worth keeping could be moved to a page about the community mentioned in the entry, since that seems the main focus of the article. Falken365 (talk) 21:10, 2 October 2008 (UTC) — Falken365 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep What exactly is the criteria to delete you are proposing? Being small isn't a valid reason. Having a fixed number of 3rd party sources isn't either. Having no potential to grow isn't listed as a valid reason for a normal sized article. It almost looks like you don't like it and using that as a reason to delete, which isn't valid. This article has gone to AFD 3 times in 3 weeks. I am hoping that your recent creation of that account, the spa (single purpose account) isn't a way to bludgeon the process to get it deleted at any price. I notice that the article has a botched afd tag as well. Requesting a keep due purely to bludgeoning. PHARMBOY (TALK) 21:28, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:30, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Single-purpose nominator, invalid rationale. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:35, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I fixed the botched AFD tag as well. I know I should always assume good faith but some people make it harder than others. Even in good faith, rationale is as botched as that tag was. PHARMBOY (TALK) 21:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you attacking me, because I'm not as experienced with this Wikipedia thing as you? I followed the instructions in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AFD, so if they're wrong, please correct them.

The Cockblock topic is very limited, being a slang term that might justify an extended dictionary entry at best. I cannot see the entry being more than a reference to one book and a couple of magazines, so WP:OC#SMALL says articles which are "Small with no potential for growth" should be proposed for deletion. I've even suggested how it might be better organized elsewhere, and therefore your accusation that I have something against the article per se are invalid. Falken365 (talk) 21:54, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is the third AFD in three weeks. Many of us experienced editors consider this an abuse worthy of being blocked. This type of action is exactly why I wrote the essay, when people treat AFD like a Magic 8 Ball: If you shake it enough, eventually you will get the answer you want. And the policy you quote is for CATEGORIES, and not a valid reason for nominating an article for deletion. It says to avoid categories that are small because of the load it puts on the servers and lack of utility. My objection isn't about the article, it is about the method of repeatedly nominating the article, and by an SPA (and maybe sockpuppet) to boot. If you are looking for an apology, you are underestimating the intellegence of the community when it comes to detecting wp:BOLLOCKS. Additionally, wp:AGF no longer applies, as you seem to know how to use Wikipedia tools perfectly when it serves your purposes (perfect summarys, using 4~s), but make "mistakes" when it also serves your purposes. Sorry, I don't buy it. PHARMBOY (TALK) 22:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Response I wasn't here three weeks ago; and I think that you are very trigger happy with your accusations. However, my opinion is that Wikipedia would be better served by condensing colloquialisms into an article detailing the most common examples; otherwise you might as well create articles for every word in George Orwell's Newspeak, Polari, Cockney Rhyming slang, Anthony Burgess's Nadsat, and so on - almost indefinitely.

- As to your other criticisms, Wikipedia is a steep learning curve - so where it says make a summary, and sign comments with 4~s, that makes perfect sense to me. Where I have to read five separate articles to mark something for deletion, and then edit three pages in a language nearly as complex as HTML, that’s a lot more difficult for me. As an Editor, you may want to look at the introductory documents, and certainly make them easier to find from the home page.

- IF WP:OC#SMALL only applies to categories, then I withdraw the complaint; but my reading of the policy was that it applied to everything. So, if that really is the case, you might want to make that clearer too. Finally, since you seem to think I'm only here to cause trouble, please block me, as it seems like I'm wasting my time trying to contribute anything at all to Wikipedia. Falken365 (talk) 23:18, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - MY problem (I speak for only me) is that I doubt you are who you say you are. And you aren't contributing, you are trying to delete only since starting your account. If I'm wrong and you are truly a "new user", then sorry, but I doubt it. PHARMBOY (TALK) 23:45, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep already. X MarX the Spot (talk) 23:34, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep already as there is nothng wrong with the succinct and properly sourced and notable article. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:00, 3 October 2008 (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.