Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Overwriting (prose)

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 no consensus to delete. There is a clear absence of consensus to delete, or even interest in deletion as a solution. Merging as an option can be proposed and further discussed outside of the AfD process. BD2412 T 00:06, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Overwriting (prose)[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I cannot see why my PROD WP:NOTDICT is disruptive. This is a clear case of a dictionary definition, with danger of morphing into an essay. TheLongTone (talk) 13:54, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Are you meaning this article is "a clear case of a dictionary definition"? I find that hard to follow. Perhaps you mean it could or should be recast as a dictionary definition? Thincat (talk) 18:46, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I personally don't find it problematic. It does not read like a definition to me, and it is also sufficiently sourced.--Melaleuca alternifolia | talk 19:25, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: (Article creator): notified myself via Twinkle on my talk page at [1], the reason given: (to quote: ... because of the following concern:

WP:notdict. Nor is it a guide for writers.

To state the obvious I was notified with the primary reason being a link to a redlink singularity oubliette, invalid, and therefore technically entitled to be claimed as disruptive. This article is in fact developed in investigations into the overwriting battlespace, the poor stub, which I find to be encyclopaedically valid, standing as a front line foot-soldier role before having a chance to develop, though from my unverified memory the NPP frontliner seeming unquestionably curate it ... then I think I'm right in saying zoomed off to make a dab out of Overwriting. The key first battle in the space can be examined at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Overwriting (computer science) and its history, that article indeed being more in my zone than this, I am not fluency of Pim, Booth, Wilde or WB but study my technique in The Cloud of Unknowing. I note the length of time between PROD and AfD that the nom.. may be very uncertain of his nomination (though RL is a valid excuse and waiting in the hope elseone, maybe SnowFire?, would bring it here). The "danger of morphing into an essay" is not a valid deletion reason, as it is only a danger, not a certainty, and perhaps indicates the nom. cannot be confident in the nomination. I am opined, and its is actually probably the case, that many definitions can be developed in an encyclopedic manner; because their is no rule on how small the topic can be and not all topics have to be at the same time. Ultimately though Overwriting (prose) has to stand on its own merits as an article: The sources in the article seem sufficient and of sufficient quality to pass GNG and SIGCOV, but there are others, indeed I would not be normally presenting a professor of rhetoric, Arthur Guinness, Caputo, and Checkoway as the RS ... but, here we are for the moment. (There are reserves if needed, I for the moment will those for others. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:29, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No comment on the merits of the article yet, but I find it highly ironic that you created an article on overwriting given your, uh, rather florid prose style. To state the obvious I was notified with the primary reason being a link to a redlink singularity oubliette, invalid, and therefore technically entitled to be claimed as disruptive. Bruh... – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 16:58, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 16:40, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Verbosity, which includes "speech or writing". Cnilep (talk) 00:37, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Verbosity per Cnielp. There's a sourceable topic here but the two are just synonyms, so separate articles doesn't make sense. SnowFire (talk) 19:31, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Given drama elsewhere I will comment briefly. Overall my primary object was Overwriting became a DAB with a link to Wictionary; with "Overwriting" become occupied by the subject or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Overwriting (computer science) in its current state. I applaud finding of a merge target (Even if I will not !vote for it). I did some more research this morning, and found an interesting article, but dramas curtail me on this at the moment. But there are three important points to be made here. Verbosity is not a synonym for overwriting. Overwriting only replies to the written word, verbosity applies to both written and oral - they are not synomyns. Is @Cnielp or anyone actually volunteering to do a merge ... a simply redirect is insufficient, and AfD is no place to discuss merges, the results can be bad. It is often stiffling to the development of the encyclopedia to merge/redirect early, that can stiffle development. IF there is a merge there is a case for pre-tagging for a to see what happens; that hasn't happened here. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:59, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - This is a short article, I would certainly be willing to do a merge - it'll take like a minute. Per WP:NOTBURO, there's no need to do a "pre-tagging" - AFDs are closed "merge" all the time without such happening if that's the consensus result.
  - For the substance of your complaint, the writing vs. speaking distinction isn't a significant issue or a problem. Wikipedia has a single article on Defamation and not separate articles on libel and slander - they're the same thing. We can discuss the distinction within one article - "verbosity in writing is sometimes called overwriting", there, done. SnowFire (talk) 20:40, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sometimes with WP:SURPRISE and without a lot of competency. Very important to avoid the synonym here. Join the ANI if you likes as your doing the hints at the Defamation and the libel and the like. Poor and bad merges are worst than no merges. Any on top of that, your suggestion , is "done" without citing a source! ... Would this be left with a {{cn}} for someone to mop up? (though to be fair I did fine one this more). More WP:VAGUEWAVE waffle, no sourcing. I may of course have missed something. Thankyou. 20:58, 25 August 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djm-leighpark (talk • contribs) 20:59, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (I commented above). I'm no further forward towards thinking this article is a dictionary definition, nor in agreeing it should be converted to one. I don't fear the danger of morphing into an essay nor would that be a reason for deletion. I'm not persuaded by the merge suggestions because for me the difference in the concepts is not so much between speech and words but that overwriting is a florid and overwrought style, not just a lot of words. Thincat (talk) 08:08, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In what way does this article differ from a dictionary definition? Also, see WP:NOTESSAY. Its also a poor and dull dictionary definition; I'd suggest quoting George Orwell on the subject, or Stella Gibbons. I agree that overwriting and verbiosity mean different things; if this is a cadidate for merging surely the target would be Purple prose. TheLongTone (talk) 13:00, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All work and no play make Djm-leighpark a dull boy! The Gibbons suggestion seems to be "Gibbons, Stella Dorothea". doi:10.1093/ref:odnb/39831. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help); I don't have the source access so cannot assist. I do note, albeit cold comfort, the purple prose appearrs related to literature, whereas overwritten appears to apply to both fiction and technical writing, per (Demír, 2019) who I have recently introduced to the article. Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:43, 31 August 2021 (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.