Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spastic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. The discussion shows a clear consensus that the article should be kept with only the nominator supporting deletion. Any discussion about appropriate content, clean up or a merge or rename can be carried out on the article's talk page. (non-admin close) Guest9999 (talk) 23:07, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Spastic[edit]
- Spastic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article is simply not encyclopedic; primarily all the problems with this article stems from the point that encyclopedia articles are not about a term, they are on a concept.
The article is about the word spastic and how it is used. Because it covers the word, it covers multiple, very distinct meanings, even drinks products that use the term 'spastic' in the name, and people referred to as spastic who are not subject to spasticity, it also covers terminology in medical scenarios such as spastic colon which have nothing in common with the perfectly proper article at spasticity or the other meanings in this article either.
Fundamentally, the policy is that Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary and this is a poster child for what it isn't. Comparing this article with wiktionary:spastic shows that the scope is extremely similar; that's because this is not at all encyclopedic. Encyclopedia articles are not simply fleshed out dictionary articles; dictionary articles are about the word/term, encyclopedia articles are about the thing or the idea.
Examination of the wiktionary article also shows that this is an adjective term; wikipedia articles do not take adjective titles either (per WP:MOS, WP:ADJECTIVE and WP:NAD guidelines/policy), so the article is improperly named; and the topic derives from an incorrect naming.
Given this, as an article (as opposed to a disamb page) this article cannot be saved, and I call for TRANSWIKI/DELETE. - Wolfkeeper 17:43, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge/Convert to disambiguation. I agree that this doesn't work as an article. The detail about Scope, cerebral palsy, etc. would be better merged to the specific articles, with this article cut down to a disambiguation page linking to the articles that could realistically be targets given 'Spastic' (or one of its derivatives, which should all redirect here) as a search term.--Michig (talk) 18:12, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This is an encyclopedic treatment of a notable word. An historical analysis of usage, with appropriate citations. Similar to negro and gay and many others. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:42, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERSTUFF. Articles on words are very rarely valid. This is not an exceptional article, and there is no evidence that it will ever be so.- Wolfkeeper 19:51, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Failure to be an "exception article" has never been a valid criteria for AFD. As for your claim that articles on words are very rarely valid, I suggest you visit Category:Words. There are hundreds of articles on words that debunk the "otherstuff" allegation.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 23:08, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but that's simply not true; Most of the articles in Category:Words are about a topic, not a word, not the actual term, but they are all associated with a common word. And they rarely if ever try to define the title in significantly different ways as this one does, and I invite you to check this by clicking on articles in that category at random; I admit that it is a very deceptive category.- Wolfkeeper 23:41, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of the articles in the cateogry:words are a topic, not word, not the actual term---Er no. While there are some sections that are on the linguistics of words, we have entire subcategories under words which are exclusively about words themselves. Let's see, we have Category:Words and phrases by language which has 69 subprojects by different languages delving into words from those languages, we have Category:Magic words which lists words such as abracadabra, hocus pocus, and presto. We have Category:Greeting words and phrases which has words to say hello. We have Category:Nonce words, We have Category:Slang which includes Category:Reclaimed words which is where Niger, Spaz, Dyke, Faggot, Queer, Geek, etc fall. But there are 30 subcategories underslang and 169 individual WORDS. Then we have Category:Word play which includes both specific sords such gems as "Bushism" and types of word play. Not to mention the category Category:Words originating in fiction---Newspeak, doublethink, robot, thoughtcrime. What about Category:Word of the year and finally Category:Word of the Year and then Swedish Loan Words which lists swedish words used in English. So once again, your point is belied by the facts. Yes, there are categories for entemology, types of words, and parts of speaech, but if that were the only categories you looked in then you failed to do your homework.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 13:57, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I wouldn't mind if you weren't misunderstanding or deliberately misrepresenting these categories. Newspeak is about a branch of English (invented by a writer) it's not about the word newspeak, neither is doublethink, robot or thoughtcrime. These are all perfectly valid articles that are not dictionary-like, well-formed articles are about the thing however they are called, in any language via any word, not just things that are referred to as such in English. Check them yourself. I repeat, you clearly, at best, misunderstand or more likely deliberately misrepresent the use and purpose of these categories.- Wolfkeeper 16:10, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As pointed out below, nice attempt at an ad hominem attack. I did check them out... with the exception of "Robot" which has evolved into a huge subject, none of them are significantly different than Spastic. But according to you, the article in question is no different than the wiktionary article, which is clearly not true. There are scores other word categories out there, which are basically more detailed expositions on various words. But we digress from the fact, the fact is that you made the false claim that we don't have articles on words. This claim is demonstratably false. To which you make the allegation of "otherstuffexists." Again, Otherstuff is generally used in reference to other articles which probably should be deleted as well---not to an established collection of hundreds (if not thousands) of articles. I'm sorry that you don't like it, but that is not grounds for deletion and so far, everybody else seems to disagree with you. As for a good dictionary entry... er I've NEVER seen a dictionary go into the detail and history/evolution of a term that this article does. Please, provide an example of a dictionary that does so!---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 17:34, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Really? When have I ever said we don't have articles on words????? I said that the policy is that we should not have articles on words. And you're just continuing with WP:OTHERSTUFF, sure you can find some, and you can find some in those categories, but even there those articles aren't actually about words. The article robot isn't about the word robot; it doesn't include robot as a form of human dancing for example. The article we are discussing is only about a word, and is inherently a dictionary article on that term.- Wolfkeeper 17:51, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If you really believe that encyclopedia articles in this category are about words, feel free to try to add robot dancing to the robot article.- Wolfkeeper 17:51, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Articles on words are very rarely valid---a notion which has been disproven. The question is, does the article extend beyond a mere defintion? If the article is merely a dictionary definition, then it needs to be deleted. This article is clearly more than a dictionary definition.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 17:58, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The policy at WP:ISNOT says that words are very rarely valid. And if you actually click the random button you'd be pretty (un)lucky to find a word article. It's literally true in every way.- Wolfkeeper 15:43, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Articles on words are very rarely valid---a notion which has been disproven. The question is, does the article extend beyond a mere defintion? If the article is merely a dictionary definition, then it needs to be deleted. This article is clearly more than a dictionary definition.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 17:58, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As pointed out below, nice attempt at an ad hominem attack. I did check them out... with the exception of "Robot" which has evolved into a huge subject, none of them are significantly different than Spastic. But according to you, the article in question is no different than the wiktionary article, which is clearly not true. There are scores other word categories out there, which are basically more detailed expositions on various words. But we digress from the fact, the fact is that you made the false claim that we don't have articles on words. This claim is demonstratably false. To which you make the allegation of "otherstuffexists." Again, Otherstuff is generally used in reference to other articles which probably should be deleted as well---not to an established collection of hundreds (if not thousands) of articles. I'm sorry that you don't like it, but that is not grounds for deletion and so far, everybody else seems to disagree with you. As for a good dictionary entry... er I've NEVER seen a dictionary go into the detail and history/evolution of a term that this article does. Please, provide an example of a dictionary that does so!---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 17:34, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I wouldn't mind if you weren't misunderstanding or deliberately misrepresenting these categories. Newspeak is about a branch of English (invented by a writer) it's not about the word newspeak, neither is doublethink, robot or thoughtcrime. These are all perfectly valid articles that are not dictionary-like, well-formed articles are about the thing however they are called, in any language via any word, not just things that are referred to as such in English. Check them yourself. I repeat, you clearly, at best, misunderstand or more likely deliberately misrepresent the use and purpose of these categories.- Wolfkeeper 16:10, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of the articles in the cateogry:words are a topic, not word, not the actual term---Er no. While there are some sections that are on the linguistics of words, we have entire subcategories under words which are exclusively about words themselves. Let's see, we have Category:Words and phrases by language which has 69 subprojects by different languages delving into words from those languages, we have Category:Magic words which lists words such as abracadabra, hocus pocus, and presto. We have Category:Greeting words and phrases which has words to say hello. We have Category:Nonce words, We have Category:Slang which includes Category:Reclaimed words which is where Niger, Spaz, Dyke, Faggot, Queer, Geek, etc fall. But there are 30 subcategories underslang and 169 individual WORDS. Then we have Category:Word play which includes both specific sords such gems as "Bushism" and types of word play. Not to mention the category Category:Words originating in fiction---Newspeak, doublethink, robot, thoughtcrime. What about Category:Word of the year and finally Category:Word of the Year and then Swedish Loan Words which lists swedish words used in English. So once again, your point is belied by the facts. Yes, there are categories for entemology, types of words, and parts of speaech, but if that were the only categories you looked in then you failed to do your homework.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 13:57, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but that's simply not true; Most of the articles in Category:Words are about a topic, not a word, not the actual term, but they are all associated with a common word. And they rarely if ever try to define the title in significantly different ways as this one does, and I invite you to check this by clicking on articles in that category at random; I admit that it is a very deceptive category.- Wolfkeeper 23:41, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Failure to be an "exception article" has never been a valid criteria for AFD. As for your claim that articles on words are very rarely valid, I suggest you visit Category:Words. There are hundreds of articles on words that debunk the "otherstuff" allegation.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 23:08, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep completely disagree with nom. The article goes beyond a mere definition of the term to discuss from an academic perspective why the term has such different connotations in England and the US. There is no policy that says "words" should be deleted, only that words should be deleted if all they are is a mere dictionay definition. This is not. Furthermore, the nominator suggest comparing the article with wiktionary:spastic because it shows that the scope is extremely similar. Er, no, the two are extremely different. The wiktionary entry merely gives a definition, it does not discuss the term. As for other words, the user is incorrect there as well. Military brat is an article about a term and it used to be a featured article. There are tons of words that have encyclopedic entries, this is no different---and no this is not WP:OTHERSTUFF, but rather the cognizant point that words can and do have articles here. WP:IDONTLIKEIT however, is not a valid reason to delete. The history of term as well as it's reception elsewhere does not belong in a definition, but rather in an article on the term.-. ---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 22:47, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep per User:Balloonman; there's a vast difference between a wiktionary article offering only definitions and an encyclopedic treatment here offering etymology scholarly analysis and , it has to be said, a context. Rodhullandemu 22:57, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That's not the problem; it's not a short definition or written exactly like a dictionary, the length is fine, but the WP:ISNOT policy says: however, articles rarely, if ever, contain several distinct definitions or usages of the article title. But the article defines the word spastic as somebody with nervous twitches; and somebody who is courteous to teachers; and somebody who has a lot of energy; and a type of drink. These things have absolutely nothing in common other than the word 'spastic'. At that point per the WP:ISNOT policy, the wikipedia article is no longer an encyclopedia article, it's an extended dictionary entry. We have to have standards to build a good encyclopedia, this article fails to meet them.- Wolfkeeper 23:34, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Then perhaps you'd care to take a look over this article to save me unnecessarily nominating it as a Good Article. You'll notice nobody is saying this article is ideal, merely that it meets the requirements for an encyclopedic treatment rather than just a list of definitions, which is the proper province of Wiktionary. However, I've said all I want to, and have other stuff to do. Rodhullandemu 23:40, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- We are discussing this article not any other, if you are agreeing that it is not ideal, then you seem to be admitting that it does not comply with wiki policy. I therefore find your vote disingenious, and note that WP:NAD is a valid policy for deletion.- Wolfkeeper 23:54, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Kindly do not misrepresent my comments, especially to suit your own ends. We have many articles that are "not ideal" but comply fully with Wiki policies, and as long as we are being sidelined into debates such as this, effort is being diverted away from them. And the word is "disingenuous", which is listed on Wiktionary, spelled correctly, and as defined there, would seem to be a personal attack on my motives. If you're going to use words, please use them correctly. WP:NAD has exceptions, as do most policies. It's not a magic wand to be waved isotropically in the hope that it may achieve the intended result. Rodhullandemu 00:03, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If we're being condescending, this is an AFD review. The AFD review is a chance for people to improve the article to meet the policies of the wikipedia, lest it be deleted if it fails to meet a key policy. The WP:NAD policy is the second most important content policy, after Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia, and is specifically listed in the deletion policy as a deletion reason. If it fails to meet this policy at the end of the AFD then it is a dictionary article, and it is not suitable for inclusion and must be deleted. This is the policy. There are no exclusions in the policy.- Wolfkeeper 00:24, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Kindly do not misrepresent my comments, especially to suit your own ends. We have many articles that are "not ideal" but comply fully with Wiki policies, and as long as we are being sidelined into debates such as this, effort is being diverted away from them. And the word is "disingenuous", which is listed on Wiktionary, spelled correctly, and as defined there, would seem to be a personal attack on my motives. If you're going to use words, please use them correctly. WP:NAD has exceptions, as do most policies. It's not a magic wand to be waved isotropically in the hope that it may achieve the intended result. Rodhullandemu 00:03, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- We are discussing this article not any other, if you are agreeing that it is not ideal, then you seem to be admitting that it does not comply with wiki policy. I therefore find your vote disingenious, and note that WP:NAD is a valid policy for deletion.- Wolfkeeper 23:54, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Errrr.... where to begin... But the article defines the word spastic as somebody with nervous twitches; and somebody who is courteous to teachers; and somebody who has a lot of energy; and a type of drink. The article does NOT define spastic as a type of drink. In other uses, it says that the word has been used as a name of an energy drink because of the connotations it carries in the US. In the history/development of the term, it shows the evolutionary progress of the term. The term originally was a medical term originating wtih somebody who has nervous twitches. By the 1950's, in the US, it was somebody who was "polite to teachers." The definition and usage of the word changed---which is exactly why this is encyclopedic article aa compared to a dictionary one.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 17:45, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- But that's exactly what dictionaries do, cover the etymology of the term.- Wolfkeeper 15:20, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmmmm: Compare to dictionary.com [1], meriam-webster [2], Wiktionary [3], The FreeDictionary [4], Newbury House [5], the Hasbro Scrabble Dictionary [6], Scholastic [7]---none of them go into the detail or history of the term and how it evolved and has been used. None of them talk about Peter Blue, Chaz the Spass, or usage during the 50's/60's. Not a single one talked about the differences in how the term is received in the US vs England! Again, your claiming this is nothing more than an dictionary def is clearly false as this goes so much further than that. The Entire entemology of the term per Meriam Webster, "Etymology: Latin spasticus, from Greek spastikos drawing in, from span". Much less that what is contained herein.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 17:45, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The policy is, and has always been (I can refer back to at least 2002, and probably 2001) that encyclopedia articles are not extended dictionary articles. Otherwise you can take any dictionary article, extend it, and it becomes 'encyclopedic'. But it doesn't; it's just a long dictionary article (an encyclopedic dictionary article to be precise). That's the problem, none of those are encyclopedic dictionaries.- Wolfkeeper 17:57, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And show me a dictionary that delves into the social implications of a term? That talks about how it has been perceived during time? About how the term created controversy when used. This isn't just a dictionary definition, if it were, then you would be 100% correct, but you are not. This is more than just a dict def.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 18:01, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I don't give a shit about that, I'm not claiming it's a dictionary article, you're the one doing that, I'm claiming it's not an encyclopedia article because it violates the policy; it goes beyond an encyclopedia article. Perhaps it's neither (shrugs).- Wolfkeeper 21:07, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Then you should revisit your nom, because in your nom you wrote, Fundamentally, the policy is that Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary and this is a poster child for what it isn't. You build your case around the fact that this article and that the one on wiktionary thescope is extremely similar. You attempted to say that it violated policy because it was nothing more than a long dictionary article or These are only and all the things that any good dictionary does. Now you are changing gears because nobody is buying your argument because it is flawed?---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 21:36, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You're obviously incapable to understand the nom then, and this obviously explains your voting pattern. I stand by that exact statement in the nom, and that was precisely my point. Saying that it goes beyond a dictionary article is completely missing the point.- Wolfkeeper 00:16, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yet another personal attack? Wow, when logic fails you, is that your avenue of attack? As for missing the point, I think it is pretty telling when the vast majority of people who have weighed in are similarly incapable of understanding your nom and similarly disagree with your position.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 15:15, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If you want to call the other participants in the review incapable of understanding something, that's your call certainly not mine.- Wolfkeeper 15:43, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yet another personal attack? Wow, when logic fails you, is that your avenue of attack? As for missing the point, I think it is pretty telling when the vast majority of people who have weighed in are similarly incapable of understanding your nom and similarly disagree with your position.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 15:15, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You're obviously incapable to understand the nom then, and this obviously explains your voting pattern. I stand by that exact statement in the nom, and that was precisely my point. Saying that it goes beyond a dictionary article is completely missing the point.- Wolfkeeper 00:16, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Then you should revisit your nom, because in your nom you wrote, Fundamentally, the policy is that Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary and this is a poster child for what it isn't. You build your case around the fact that this article and that the one on wiktionary thescope is extremely similar. You attempted to say that it violated policy because it was nothing more than a long dictionary article or These are only and all the things that any good dictionary does. Now you are changing gears because nobody is buying your argument because it is flawed?---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 21:36, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I don't give a shit about that, I'm not claiming it's a dictionary article, you're the one doing that, I'm claiming it's not an encyclopedia article because it violates the policy; it goes beyond an encyclopedia article. Perhaps it's neither (shrugs).- Wolfkeeper 21:07, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And show me a dictionary that delves into the social implications of a term? That talks about how it has been perceived during time? About how the term created controversy when used. This isn't just a dictionary definition, if it were, then you would be 100% correct, but you are not. This is more than just a dict def.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 18:01, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The policy is, and has always been (I can refer back to at least 2002, and probably 2001) that encyclopedia articles are not extended dictionary articles. Otherwise you can take any dictionary article, extend it, and it becomes 'encyclopedic'. But it doesn't; it's just a long dictionary article (an encyclopedic dictionary article to be precise). That's the problem, none of those are encyclopedic dictionaries.- Wolfkeeper 17:57, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmmmm: Compare to dictionary.com [1], meriam-webster [2], Wiktionary [3], The FreeDictionary [4], Newbury House [5], the Hasbro Scrabble Dictionary [6], Scholastic [7]---none of them go into the detail or history of the term and how it evolved and has been used. None of them talk about Peter Blue, Chaz the Spass, or usage during the 50's/60's. Not a single one talked about the differences in how the term is received in the US vs England! Again, your claiming this is nothing more than an dictionary def is clearly false as this goes so much further than that. The Entire entemology of the term per Meriam Webster, "Etymology: Latin spasticus, from Greek spastikos drawing in, from span". Much less that what is contained herein.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 17:45, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- But that's exactly what dictionaries do, cover the etymology of the term.- Wolfkeeper 15:20, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Then perhaps you'd care to take a look over this article to save me unnecessarily nominating it as a Good Article. You'll notice nobody is saying this article is ideal, merely that it meets the requirements for an encyclopedic treatment rather than just a list of definitions, which is the proper province of Wiktionary. However, I've said all I want to, and have other stuff to do. Rodhullandemu 23:40, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep per User:Quiddity - we also could argue forever as to whether or not it's in accordance with policy, but I think its presence does improve Wikipedia and so I'm going to invoke WP:IAR Sidefall (talk) 09:05, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That at least is a position that I respect. I don't agree though.- Wolfkeeper 15:20, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Massive Keep As a disabled person myself I think that this article is quite relevant to the world at large. Now and in the future, I beleive that this article will be a strong anti-force to the ranks of politically incorrect chavs that speak the term without knowing any of the backstory. Also I down right KNOW that this article is encyclopedic as it goes beyond a dictionary in defining the term. So I have presented my opposition to all you not disabled people who are deletionist hunkyjunks. Please people, vote keep!! Sheled (talk) 10:35, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I can see how being derogatory to 'chav's helps people not be derogatory back to you.- Wolfkeeper 15:20, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is that it goes beyond an encyclopedia article.- Wolfkeeper 15:20, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Snowball Keep Doubtless the article could do with improvement but spastic is a notable term in ways which most words are not. It is entirely deserving an article in wp. The remainder of the complaints - particularly relating to the "fact" that the word is used as an adjective - are ill made and not compelling. --Tagishsimon (talk) 10:40, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- All words in the English language and every other language can be considered notable by this flawed argument. This article defines a word, which is an adjective, defines the word in multiple ways, covers the usages, covers the etymology, covers the derived terms. These are only and all the things that any good dictionary does.- Wolfkeeper 15:20, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not quite; the word is clearly also an adjectival noun-[8] and that usage is covered in the article. I think what should count here is providing information to our readers, and those readers come here to find more than they would find in their Webster's, Funk & Wagnell's, or even Oxford English Dictionary. Splitting hairs to make a point-and, as far as I can see, a very weak and lawyeristic point, does not advance the purpose of this encyclopedia. I might be persuaded to change my mind if you can find me a Professor of English who supports this (to my mind) unnecessary distinction; most of the Professors of English I've ever met, however, have been a tad more pragmatic. The volume of your posts as against those who resist your nomination speaks volumes to me, and tends to persuade that either your argument for deletion is weak ab initio or cannot withstand a proper reaching of consensus. Rodhullandemu 01:01, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, this is a common English word, and we should not be doing a dictionary-like entry on it. As another example, the Encyclopedia Britannica does not have an entry on it; but it has an entry equivalent to our one on spasticity. We're specifically not trying to be an extended dictionary. Everything about this article is wrong.- Wolfkeeper 01:20, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The policy against common english words in the Wikipedia has always been there in the policies.[9]- Wolfkeeper 01:25, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- We don't have "a dictionary-like entry on it". We have an encyclopedia-like entry on it. (and we're not Britannica.) Just as we have articles on phrases that have achieved notability, so do we have articles on words that have achieved notability. (Britannica doesn't have articles on phrases either. Not that it matters.) -- Quiddity (talk) 04:15, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And that's because of the obvious difference... Britanica is constrained by the size... but we are not. We can cover things a traditional encyclopedia might leave out---not because the item isn't worth covering, but rather because the paper encyclopedia would occupy the volume of an entire library to cover what we cover!---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 07:33, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Nahhhh. They don't do it because it's stupid: they ship with a dictionary, much like the Wikipedia does. Encyclopedias are supposed to complement dictionaries, not replace or simply extend them.- Wolfkeeper 09:10, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And that's because of the obvious difference... Britanica is constrained by the size... but we are not. We can cover things a traditional encyclopedia might leave out---not because the item isn't worth covering, but rather because the paper encyclopedia would occupy the volume of an entire library to cover what we cover!---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 07:33, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- We don't have "a dictionary-like entry on it". We have an encyclopedia-like entry on it. (and we're not Britannica.) Just as we have articles on phrases that have achieved notability, so do we have articles on words that have achieved notability. (Britannica doesn't have articles on phrases either. Not that it matters.) -- Quiddity (talk) 04:15, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not quite; the word is clearly also an adjectival noun-[8] and that usage is covered in the article. I think what should count here is providing information to our readers, and those readers come here to find more than they would find in their Webster's, Funk & Wagnell's, or even Oxford English Dictionary. Splitting hairs to make a point-and, as far as I can see, a very weak and lawyeristic point, does not advance the purpose of this encyclopedia. I might be persuaded to change my mind if you can find me a Professor of English who supports this (to my mind) unnecessary distinction; most of the Professors of English I've ever met, however, have been a tad more pragmatic. The volume of your posts as against those who resist your nomination speaks volumes to me, and tends to persuade that either your argument for deletion is weak ab initio or cannot withstand a proper reaching of consensus. Rodhullandemu 01:01, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep - this is an encyclopedic article on a notable topic. Wikipedia already has articles on numerous other offensive words that are notable for their capacity to give offence, with a similar treatment that focuses on their etymology and social history, based on multiple verifiable reliable sources. This is no different. -- The Anome (talk) 11:55, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- On the fence: nominator definitely has (at least) one valid point: The "products"-section is out-of-place, and I'm guessing that's what makes the whole thing look messy. If you'd like to keep it and elaborate on the first two sections, it could work; but you'd still have to convince me of that, somehow... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 12:06, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's an issue to discuss on the talkpage of the article; It is Not a reason to nominate the whole thing for deletion. See WP:DEL#REASON and WP:BEFORE and WP:BATHWATER (etc). -- Quiddity (talk) 19:24, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's true. Let's see what happens, and re-visit in a few months. Weak keep Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 22:36, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's messy because it covers different things throughout; this is inevitable in dictionary-like articles, they move from topic to topic to topic.- Wolfkeeper 15:43, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's also messy mainly because back in 2006, Balloonman spammed the disamb page with lots of inappropriate garbage.[10], which eventually confused somebody called WhiteCat who inadvisedly remove the disamb tag.- Wolfkeeper 16:07, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Good grief get over it. The original page was nothing more than a dict def... I expanded the article into a more encyclopedic article on the subject. The article has existed for 4 years and gets about 400 hits per day... and you are the ONLY person to have whined about it... that should tell you something! The fact that you are the only person advocating the deletion of the article and have yet to provide a reason that convinces anybody else of the righteousness of your cause should tell you something. Nobody has bought into your argument because it is woefully lacking.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 17:12, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The original page had been a disamb page, and you spammed it with a bunch of article text and turned it into that. And that's why it still reads weirdly.- Wolfkeeper 17:53, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Good grief get over it. The original page was nothing more than a dict def... I expanded the article into a more encyclopedic article on the subject. The article has existed for 4 years and gets about 400 hits per day... and you are the ONLY person to have whined about it... that should tell you something! The fact that you are the only person advocating the deletion of the article and have yet to provide a reason that convinces anybody else of the righteousness of your cause should tell you something. Nobody has bought into your argument because it is woefully lacking.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 17:12, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's true. Let's see what happens, and re-visit in a few months. Weak keep Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 22:36, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's an issue to discuss on the talkpage of the article; It is Not a reason to nominate the whole thing for deletion. See WP:DEL#REASON and WP:BEFORE and WP:BATHWATER (etc). -- Quiddity (talk) 19:24, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as nom's interpretation of policy is decidedly out-of-step with most of the community. We do have encyclopedic articles on words, at least one is a featured article. --NeilN talk to me 21:04, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- FWIW there's over 3 million articles in the wikipedia, and over 1 million words in Wiktionary. My current best estimate is that there's possibly a 1000 actual word/term articles in the wikipedia and most of those are just badly written encyclopedic articles you can correct in a couple of minutes, and then there's one or two featured articles. They're very, very rare. I haven't managed to hit any so far by clicking on the random button, there's just far too few. And it's not just me, almost everyone here has deliberately avoided creating them and has fixed them or deleted them. The best way to find them is to go under a category like Category:Words, but the large majority of those aren't true word articles.- Wolfkeeper 23:13, 22 March 2010 (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.