Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beating up (2nd nomination)

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2009 April 4.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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 delete. Stifle (talk) 08:56, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beating up

First off I realise that the previous discussion about this article ended just over a week ago and renomination within this time period is not standard practise. However that discussion ended out of process after the nominator withdrew his nomination and was then closed as WP:SNOW by a non-admin and as always on Wikipedia exceptions to policy or convention can be made. To sum up the previous nomination:

Several users thought the article should be deleted for various reasons.
The article was then reformatted into a disambiguation page.
The page was deemed to be a perfectly acceptable disambiguation page and received support to be kept from several users.
The nominator withdrew and the discussion was closed per WP:SNOW by a non-admin.

The problem with this is that in no way is the page a disambiguation page - at least not what is described in Wikipedia:Disambiguation. Disambiguation is intended to resolve "conflicts in article titles that occur when a single term can be associated with more than one topic" - this page does not do that. There are no articles with the title "beating up" or anything particularly close to beating up - the page does not serve any purpose in terms of disambiguating articles. The initial section of the page is a list of dictionary definitions, Wikipedia is not a dictionary so they should not be the basis of an article and if the page is intended to be a disambiguation page then dictionary definitions are the first thing mentioned in the what not to include section of Wikipedia:Disambiguation. The next section is a list of synonyms, again Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The final section of the page contains some information about things with vaguely similar names such as the game genre Beat 'em ups and the Song Beat Him Up, these are, at best, partial title matches which are the second thing mentioned under what not to include in disambiguation pages. Based on this I think that the page cannot serve as a disambiguation page. As an article the page was roundly criticised in the previous discussion and I think the topic is already covered in an encyclopaedic manner on Wikipedia. From a legal perspective the topic is covered in articles such as Battery (crime) and Assault, from a more general perspective there are articles such as Violence. An article with this title would likely either be simply a dictionary definition of the colloquialism or a content fork of other articles that present the topic in a more definable way. Guest9999 (talk) 18:54, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As the nominator says, this is nothing like a proper dab page per WP:DAB. Along with this page, Beating should probably be deleted, or selectively merged to Beat, where almost all the relevant senses seem to be already disambiguated more in line with WP guidelines (though even that page needs some tweaking). Incoming links to this page are irrelevant, since it is they that need to be revised or unlinked, not Beating up that needs to be kept. Deor (talk) 19:16, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Deor. [ roux ] [x] was prince of canada 19:27, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As Deor says, Delete. X MarX the Spot (talk) 19:39, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I was in favour of Keeping this article in its previous AfD, and I believe the nominator has cogent points. However, I am bothered that this is being brought back to AfD so quickly after the previous go-round. I might ask if the nominator or anyone else would like to try editing this page before trying to erase it. Thanks! Ecoleetage (talk) 22:23, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and trim so it IS as disambiguartion page. It does not need explanations or descriptions as if it were Wiktionary. I'd be glad to do so myself. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:09, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trim to what? There are no pages with the title "Beating up" or "Beating up (XXXX)" or any variation of "beating up" that could apply as a combined term. Guest9999 (talk) 00:23, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep as is a useful non-standard disam page. Since when does everything have to be formulaic? DGG (talk) 02:23, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A dab actually disambiguates between some Wikipedia articles. This "dab" is merely a collection of WP:DICTDEFs. VG ☎ 09:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Some sort of page is needed here, as it has 29 incoming ordinary links, including via the redirect page Beaten up. (Compare discussion in Talk:Vial.) Beating-up is all too common as an unofficial means of enforcement etc, and in my opinion there is more to it than merely saying what the word means. It is not an absolute synonym of assault, as not all forms of assault involve beating-up. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:24, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:08, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: echoing VasileGaburici: this is not a disambiguation page, just dictionary defs. Beaten up and Beating up can redirect to Assault -- redirection is not an indication of absolute synonymity, and there are many instances of narrower terms redirectig to broader terms (so that not all forms of assault need to involve beating up for the redirect to be useful). -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:40, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A good example of that might be "Hitting" which redirects to Violence even though obviously not all forms or instances of violence involve hitting. Guest9999 (talk) 01:21, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Useful page to the Wikipedia project, which therefore trumps other arguments. That said, a complete STOMPing of WP policy to re-list this quickly deserves further looking into. Editors jobs are to IMPROVE articles, not delete if possible. BMW(drive) 20:29, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is just a dictionary definition. Bwilkins, it's not obvious to me why this page is useful to the Wikipedia project -- can you explain further? brianlucas (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 22:13, 14 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]
- Alternatively, this could be merged to Beat or Beating. There's no need for "Beating up" in addition to those two. brianlucas (talk) 22:16, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete as bunch of (unourced, OR) dicdefs or Redirect to wiktionary, where they treat definition of terms properly.Yobmod (talk) 10:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Contains original research and should probably just be redirected to wiktionary. Either way, it doesn't need a page here. Undead Warrior (talk) 11:54, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Themfromspace (talk) 17:50, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is not "original research". Many of the meanings given are public common knowledge. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:42, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's commone knowledge to who? There are people out there who don't share the same "common knowledge" as you do. Either way, common knowledge is not a basis for a keep. It's unsourced information. Undead Warrior (talk) 22:51, 17 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.