Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wedgie (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 no consensus. Docg 01:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
AfDs for this article:
Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This is a term, not a encyclopedic article and its already covered in School prank. AnmaFinotera (talk) 05:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NOT#DICT, this can't possibly be expanded beyond a dicdef. Although I should point out that wedgie-proof underwear already exist... they're called boxer shorts. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 05:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I think that the nom is stretching the line of "dictionary definition" here. An action that is "notable" (and actually has a reference) is worthy of an article. Sailing, for example. - jc37 05:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Added a note to my nom, as I just found out it is also already covered in School prank along with noogies and the like. The one source could easily be added there. AnmaFinotera (talk) 05:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merging to School prank is fine with me. (Nice find : ) - jc37 06:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Added a note to my nom, as I just found out it is also already covered in School prank along with noogies and the like. The one source could easily be added there. AnmaFinotera (talk) 05:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to school prank. A full article could be written about this, but until then it is fairly redundant to that article. Mr.Z-man 05:40, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect per User:Mr.Z-man. The article can be unredirected and improved when more sources are available.--Lenticel (talk) 05:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect per User:Mr.Z-man. A bit redundant to the school prank article. Source is great, but no need to have its own article. --Son (talk) 06:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep There was lots of information pertaining to the notability of this, however, it got remove since it wasn't referenced and "trivia". That was probably the best choice, but it shows there's potential to make this worth keeping. Right now, it's not a terrible stub. And it's not just a school prank so a merge isn't ideal. 16:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rocket000 (talk • contribs)
- You know, if it wasn't referenced, then it doesn't pertain to notability. Notability is defined in terms of information that can be referenced. How does a bunch of original research show that something is notable? -GTBacchus(talk) 23:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because it isn't referenced doesn't mean it's original research. And not every single thing needs to be referenced (see WP:V). Rocket000 11:13, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Um... I didn't claim either of those things. I claimed that the article contains a lot of original research. -GTBacchus(talk) 11:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And I didn't claim you claimed those things. It's what we're implying. Rocket000 17:02, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Um... I didn't claim either of those things. I claimed that the article contains a lot of original research. -GTBacchus(talk) 11:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because it isn't referenced doesn't mean it's original research. And not every single thing needs to be referenced (see WP:V). Rocket000 11:13, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You know, if it wasn't referenced, then it doesn't pertain to notability. Notability is defined in terms of information that can be referenced. How does a bunch of original research show that something is notable? -GTBacchus(talk) 23:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to above commentators: Immediately prior to its nomination, the article was purged of 6,000 bytes of content. It should be evaluated on the basis of its full content (on which I pass no judgement, for or against), not on the near-dicdef that was put in its place.--Father Goose 19:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - As the editor who cleaned up that article before it was nominated for deletion, I disagree that we should evaluate it based on a bunch of original research that's been deleted repeatedly. What has a bunch of unsourced (and apparently unsourceable) material got to do with whether or not the article should be kept? -GTBacchus(talk) 23:05, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of the material that was removed was drawn from primary sources, which is not automatically original research per the terms of WP:PSTS. Some of the material removed from the "types of wedgies" section can be sourced, so I'll add what sources I can find and remove the parts that do genuinely seem like OR.--Father Goose 23:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- When you say "the parts that do genuinely seem like OR," what criteria are you using? -GTBacchus(talk) 00:49, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Review the most recent rewrite for your answer. If I couldn't find a source for it, I removed it. I didn't remove any of the primary-source-based claims; I trust that someone else can verify them by checking that those descriptions match what actually appears in those sources.--Father Goose 01:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, anyone could verify that research by repeating the research. That's why I consider it original research. This is particularly true for a claim such as, "In the animated cartoon on Nickelodeon, The Fairly Oddparents, a bully named Francis usually gives wedgies to children younger than him." This is someone's distillation of their own familiarity with the show. I think a Wikipedia article on wedgies should be based on what sources about wedgies say. If those sources talk about how wedgies appear in cartoons, and list examples, then so should we. Otherwise, I think it's OR. I'm curious what others think.
Incidentally, I don't necessarily support deletion of the shorter version. I think that redirecting makes some sense, but that would make "Wedgie" one of the longer sections of that article, possibly deserving one of its own. -GTBacchus(talk) 01:38, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If you consider describing what a source says (or otherwise depicts) as "original research", that is a rather unworkable definition, not reflected by what WP:NOR says. I grant you that "distillations", such as the example you give above, are more likely to drift toward interpretive claims. I prefer to see specific descriptions of specific episodes cited, so as to be able to check the citations (much like it's not right to say "source: The New York Times" without giving a specific article).--Father Goose 08:25, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I wouldn't say that describing the contents of a work is always original research, especially when other commentators have talked about particular sections of the work. When we start deciding what is or is not important in a work, and what constitutes a notable example of which concept, then yes, I think we're doing original research. -GTBacchus(talk) 11:07, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately, that goes both ways: one person saying "this is unimportant" is just as much original research as another saying "this is important". I suppose on occasion one can find a secondary source that explicitly says "this is important to <subject>", but for the most part, importance is subjective, and best resolved by attempting to form consensus for its retention or removal.--Father Goose 05:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I wouldn't say that describing the contents of a work is always original research, especially when other commentators have talked about particular sections of the work. When we start deciding what is or is not important in a work, and what constitutes a notable example of which concept, then yes, I think we're doing original research. -GTBacchus(talk) 11:07, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If you consider describing what a source says (or otherwise depicts) as "original research", that is a rather unworkable definition, not reflected by what WP:NOR says. I grant you that "distillations", such as the example you give above, are more likely to drift toward interpretive claims. I prefer to see specific descriptions of specific episodes cited, so as to be able to check the citations (much like it's not right to say "source: The New York Times" without giving a specific article).--Father Goose 08:25, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, anyone could verify that research by repeating the research. That's why I consider it original research. This is particularly true for a claim such as, "In the animated cartoon on Nickelodeon, The Fairly Oddparents, a bully named Francis usually gives wedgies to children younger than him." This is someone's distillation of their own familiarity with the show. I think a Wikipedia article on wedgies should be based on what sources about wedgies say. If those sources talk about how wedgies appear in cartoons, and list examples, then so should we. Otherwise, I think it's OR. I'm curious what others think.
- Review the most recent rewrite for your answer. If I couldn't find a source for it, I removed it. I didn't remove any of the primary-source-based claims; I trust that someone else can verify them by checking that those descriptions match what actually appears in those sources.--Father Goose 01:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- When you say "the parts that do genuinely seem like OR," what criteria are you using? -GTBacchus(talk) 00:49, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of the material that was removed was drawn from primary sources, which is not automatically original research per the terms of WP:PSTS. Some of the material removed from the "types of wedgies" section can be sourced, so I'll add what sources I can find and remove the parts that do genuinely seem like OR.--Father Goose 23:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - As the editor who cleaned up that article before it was nominated for deletion, I disagree that we should evaluate it based on a bunch of original research that's been deleted repeatedly. What has a bunch of unsourced (and apparently unsourceable) material got to do with whether or not the article should be kept? -GTBacchus(talk) 23:05, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it doesn't go both ways. Information is assumed not to be significant or notable (in an encyclopedic sense), until it's being discussed in a secondary source demonstrates its notability. I don't have to provide evidence that some editor's cat is "unimportant". Unless he provides evidence that his cat is important, that article gets deleted. The question: "has anyone publishing a secondary source deemed fact X worthy of mention" is not a subjective one. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:Notability only applies to subjects (or articles as a whole), not to the content of articles, i.e., individual facts. Further, the article now contains several secondary sources that each have deemed various aspects of "wedgies" a subject of note.--Father Goose 07:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it doesn't go both ways. Information is assumed not to be significant or notable (in an encyclopedic sense), until it's being discussed in a secondary source demonstrates its notability. I don't have to provide evidence that some editor's cat is "unimportant". Unless he provides evidence that his cat is important, that article gets deleted. The question: "has anyone publishing a secondary source deemed fact X worthy of mention" is not a subjective one. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Per the above, commentators may wish to consider both versions that have been up recently. -GTBacchus(talk) 23:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to school prank Wikipedia isn't a dictionary. Not to mention other articles, such as noogie and wet willy are redirected there as well. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 00:25, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not a dicdef article, notwithstanding GTBacchus' hollowed-out version. This truly troubling if someone can blank almost all the content from an article then get it deleted in the same day due to its being blanked. (Yes, I know, the nominator and purger are not the same individuals.) I wonder if legitimate articles have been speedied on this basis in the past.--Father Goose 01:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Knowing that the "purger" and the nominator were two different people, why would you even construct the phrase, "someone can blank almost all the content from an article then get it deleted in the same day"? How is that sentence an accurate picture of what "someone" is doing? Who is the "someone" you've got in mind, me or the nominator? -GTBacchus(talk) 19:25, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not trying to imply that either you or Collectonian have acted in bad faith here. However, if an article is nearly blanked (and not because it violates any policy, but on the basis of a personal judgement), then nominated for deletion because it is nearly blank, it doesn't allow the article to get a "fair trial", as it were.--Father Goose 07:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have removed all assertions in the article for which I could not find sources, and added sources to the remainder. I haven't added citations to most of the primary source entries, as the sources used in those cases is implied, and such information is compliant with WP:PSTS, a section of WP:NOR.--Father Goose 01:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought I should mention, I did look at the article history and saw the before and after. I didn't find the "fuller" version any better than the original. The fuller version, and the current one, are both just giant trivia lists with the same short definition. The only content addition are "types" which could still be covered in school prank very easily. AnmaFinotera 01:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So what we're looking at is a purge of the article because WP:ITSCRUFT, then deletion because "it's empty". This is wrong on every level.--Father Goose 05:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I removed a bunch of cruft - is that "wrong on every level". As stated below, the reason for deletion isn't that it's empty; the reason is that, even with all the cruft, it's still just a dicdef with a list of examples. What exactly is "wrong on every level" about this? -GTBacchus(talk) 19:23, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have to agree with Father Goose on this one. Even if it wasn't intended, it's pretty misleading. Rocket000 11:33, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So what does that mean? Any time an article has been improved recently before an AfD, we should revert the improvements? How does that make sense? -GTBacchus(talk) 19:23, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've made a substantial attempt to improve the article in response to the AfD; how does deleting those improvements make sense?--Father Goose 07:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And who has deleted those? -GTBacchus(talk) 09:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- None of the above commentators have returned to reassess the article in light of the issues I've raised here (as well as the improvements I made); the closing admin might simply count the redirects and toss the article. I've seen that happen; people seldom return to change their vote after the article is fixed up. In that light, I'll finally submit a "!vote" of my own.--Father Goose 19:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And who has deleted those? -GTBacchus(talk) 09:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've made a substantial attempt to improve the article in response to the AfD; how does deleting those improvements make sense?--Father Goose 07:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So what does that mean? Any time an article has been improved recently before an AfD, we should revert the improvements? How does that make sense? -GTBacchus(talk) 19:23, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not the editor who went in and removed the lists, and as I could see why they were removed, I did not see any point in reverting those edits before AfDing. I'd have AfDed either version, as even with the huge list, it still is basically a two sentence definition, three if you count the types, followed by an virtually limitless list of "examples." AnmaFinotera 11:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So what we're looking at is a purge of the article because WP:ITSCRUFT, then deletion because "it's empty". This is wrong on every level.--Father Goose 05:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought I should mention, I did look at the article history and saw the before and after. I didn't find the "fuller" version any better than the original. The fuller version, and the current one, are both just giant trivia lists with the same short definition. The only content addition are "types" which could still be covered in school prank very easily. AnmaFinotera 01:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per the Heymann standard and the fact that the "dicdef" claim is made toward a non-representative version of the article.--Father Goose 19:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per WP:HEY. I had heard "Melvin" and "atomic wedgie" mentioned in a lot of US TV shows, but I didn't know what they exactly were until I read this article. Bláthnaid 20:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Father Goose and the Heymann standard. DHowell (talk) 21:25, 4 December 2007 (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.