Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sneer

: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. Nominated in good faith but no consensus to delete. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:23, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

=[[Sneer]]=

:{{la|Sneer}} – (View AfD)(View log)

:({{findsources|Sneer}})

As I said in my prod, this article could illustrate a dictionary definition for what a WP:DICTDEF article looks like. I think it's unlikely there's much else to say about the concept of a "sneer". Prod was removed with the summary: "I think fiacial expressions are encyclopedic, so this can become a better article", which seems like poor logic to me (and the current text is virtually identical to when the article was created four years ago). Propaniac (talk) 13:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep. Only those articles that can never become more than definition stubs should be deleted as dictionary definitions. This subject is easily capable of being expanded; Charles Darwin devoted a [http://books.google.com/books?id=UsXYoj1SfAQC&pg=PA251&lpg=PA251&dq=sneer+darwin&source=bl&ots=wGjTakDmZY&sig=t0LpRVFK43VR73PvaVrSaFbNSqs&hl=en&ei=SqLMSqifCdvBtweky4nyAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7#v=onepage&q=&f=false whole chapter] to it in The Expression of Emotions in Man and Animals. So there is more to say about the subject, even if no one has finished it yet. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:19, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

::I have slightly expanded the article, adding information from Darwin's book. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Weak Keep Recent edits by Ihcoyc bring article just over the bar. Simonm223 (talk) 15:38, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment Well, gee, pardon me for not being intimately familiar with the entire text of Charles Darwin's The Expression of Emotions in Man and Animals. I've now read the linked chapter (p. 249-253) and while it certainly helps, I'm still not convinced that it's enough to establish that there is sufficient material for an encyclopedia article on this topic; the article can't simply paraphase Darwin's observations. If there are other sources brought forth that can add something to the discussion, I'd be more convinced. (If there is no other such source, the idea that "Well, since Darwin did it, theoretically someone else could write four pages about parts of the world in which he's observed people sneer" is obviously inadequate.) Propaniac (talk) 16:00, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Of course there are other sources! https://doi.org/10.1007%2FBF00992469 for one. Narayanese (talk) 07:27, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
  • The abstract doesn't use the word "sneer"; did you find this by looking for "expressions of contempt" or something like that? Actually, it makes me think that Sneer should perhaps be merged/redirected to Contempt#Facial expressions, a page I hadn't looked at before; that section seems already to be largely about sneering. Propaniac (talk) 18:34, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I meant the article, not the abstract. But yes, sneer and facial expression of contempt are the same topic. A merge could go in the other direction as well or better though. Narayanese (talk) 19:06, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Well, it appears I can only see the abstract, not the article, so if you're expecting me to consider the article without basing it on the abstract, you'll have a problem there. Propaniac (talk) 20:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 21:31, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 21:31, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. I'm all for removing dictionary entries masquerading as encyclopedia articles, but in this case it seems there are sufficient sources that discuss the facial expression itself (versus the word "sneer") to justify keeping this stub article. Powers T 12:04, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep [http://books.google.com/books?lr=&as_brr=0&q=Sneer+expression&btnG=Search+Books Evidently notable]. We find no discussion by the nominator on the article's talk page. He should please familiarise himself with WP:BRD and WP:BEFORE so that he may waste less of our time. (*_*) Colonel Warden (talk) 17:52, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I wasn't going to reply, but this is really rude. There's nothing in either of those linked guidelines that would have changed my mind about nominating the article. I was being "bold" by trying to delete the article because I felt that it was unimprovable (and looking up a list of books that use the word "sneer" did not convince me that there was any worthwhile information about sneering). As for WP:BEFORE, I reviewed the article's history and saw it hadn't been improved in the last several years. I looked for a good merge/redirect target and couldn't find one. I assumed that anyone interested in discussion would have commented on the Talk page when the prod came up, and neither the prod-remover nor anyone else since the article was created had contributed any discussion; I suspect (maybe I'm wrong?) that no one producing sources here would have seen a Talk page note if I'd left one, and if they were aware of the page, perhaps they could have improved it sometime in the last four years instead of now. Maybe I wasn't able to find sources that exist, but there's no call for that kind of condescension and assumption of bad faith. Propaniac (talk) 18:27, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I agree; this nomination was not prima facie out of line and easily supportable with the available information. Powers T 22:46, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Neither the article nor the topic qualifies as a deletable/mergeable dicdef. For the record, I think this particular nomination was an assualt (an incredibly rude act) on all those who took the time to start the article and all those who have contributed to it over a number of years. The excuse that it's been around and there's no recent sign of improvement goes against the second rule ever dreamed up for wikipedia policy. See [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=RulesToConsider&oldid=277053 Wikipedia:Historical archive/RulesToConsider]: Always leave something undone. --Firefly322 (talk) 23:27, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
  • This is really ridiculous; if this AFD nom was "an assault", so is virtually every other AFD nom. The referenced "rule" makes no sense in this context, and little sense in any context (should I assume that every inadequate article is intentionally left inadequate? Should I avoid ever trying to improve an article myself, so that someone else can make the improvement?) If you'd like to discuss this further please leave it on my Talk page instead of here. Propaniac (talk) 15:01, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

:::CommentAfD Nominations don't grant the nominators extra power or authority over any other editors. --Firefly322 (talk) 17:50, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

::::...Yes? That's true? If you're referring to my request, I'm sure most people (clearly not all) would agree that this page is not the best venue for you to attack me for nominating the article, instead of discussing the merit of the article itself. I can respond better on my or your Talk page. But do as you wish. Propaniac (talk) 19:40, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep There is enough information out there about every facial expression, to warrant articles for them. Please search for references before nominating something. And if you are willing to admit your mistake, you can just stop arguing with people, and withdraw your nomination. Dream Focus 16:41, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I did "check for sources," as I have stated; apparently I have higher standards than others, because I don't feel that a list of books that use a word is a list of good sources for discussing the meaning and context of the word (although I'm sure noting that some people think cats sneer is a valuable addition to the general knowledge). If the article had been in its current state when I came upon it, I probably would not have nominated it, but I still don't think it's a good article and I doubt it will be significantly expanded. As I said above, a merge/redirect to Contempt#Facial expressions seems the most logical outcome, but barring that I would rather delete the article than keep it, even if I'm the only one unconvinced it will flourish. Propaniac (talk) 17:22, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Note We should be able to express our opinions without heaping excessive criticism upon the nominator. The nomination was done in good faith, and that ought to be enough. Powers T 17:47, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

::Comment I don't think the point of "calling this a waste of time" was to critize the nominator personally. It was simply to fend off AfD's of other articles in :Category:Facial expressions and other stuby articles whose topics aren't dicdef's. --Firefly322 (talk) 18:01, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

:::There have been a number of strange diversions here into attacking me personally instead of simply stating whether or not the article should be kept or deleted and why. But I'm not seeking to drag such tangents out further. Propaniac (talk) 19:40, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

::::The motivation for writing contemptible things was to play off the subject matter. After all, this AfD is about the concept of a Sneer. --Firefly322 (talk) 20:15, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep - Per Simonm223. I think it's notable enough to bedeserving of an article anyway, Lord Spongefrog (review) (I am Czar of all Russias!) 15:27, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Really? Remove the sneer. What's next, removing Sarcasm. You won't be leaving me with many options, how am I supposed to communicate? (Real reason: High EV) User:Nezzadar (speak) 23:09, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

: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.