Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spraint
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. Stifle (talk) 15:35, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Spraint (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)
Virtually a Wiktionary entry for the name of otter feces. Article has zero substance beyond definition. PacificBoy 20:18, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as a
interwiki linksoft redirect to the Wiktionary entry then. Qwfp (talk) 20:25, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Please don't blank articles in mid-AfD. Even the template is quite specific on this. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:11, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It depends what you mean by "blank"; unfortunately the AfD template doesn't link the word. I didn't ←blank the page, and the AfD template specifically states one is free to edit the article beyond the template. On reflection that edit was a bit rash though. Apologies, Qwfp (talk) 22:04, 20 July 2010 (UTC) [reply]
- "Interwiki"? How about just a link on the referring page to the Wiktionary entry? According to your logic, we should have a separate Wikipedia page for every entry that both appears in a Wikipedia article and has a Wiktionary entry.PacificBoy 20:41, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, i was in a hurry last night and used the wrong piece of wikijargon; i meant just leave a link to the Wiktionary entry, i.e. a soft redirect to Wiktionary, not an ordinary interwiki link. The article has existed for over 3 years without meaningful expansion beyond a dictionary definition. An alternative would be a targetted redirect to 'otter', but that article doesn't currently mention the term 'spraint' so would first require a new section to be written. Qwfp (talk) 22:04, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Whilst the current article is poor, there's plenty of notability as a topic and certainly scope for expansion (in particular, the importance of studying spraint to measure otter populations). Andy Dingley (talk) 00:12, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Otter or Merge. In light of the historic absence of meaningful expansion to this article I believe that this represents a reasonable course of action. It is certainly notable (discussed in ~90 scholarly publications in 2009, ~600 since 2000), but more work needs to be done for it to stand on its own. --Bhickey (talk) 03:56, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- … or indeed on the subject of sprainting in general. Hans Kruuk's Otters: ecology, behaviour, and conservation devotes pages 79–86 to the subject, which is discussed in quite extraordinary depth. There are even graphs.
PacificBoy, we call this sort of article a stub. The next time that you come across one, the proper course of thinking, per deletion policy, is to ask yourself "How is it possible to expand this stub?". See User:Uncle G/Wikipedia triage#What to do. Uncle G (talk) 01:46, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I really don't appreciate the condescension, Uncle G. I've been on Wikipedia for more than four years, and I've been on a couple of task forces, so trust me when I say I know what a "stub" is. Frankly, when I come across a stub that's nothing but a definition, I don't ask "How is it possible to expand this stub," but "Why, if it's such an important topic to a few individuals, have they themselves not worked to expand it beyond a wiktionary entry?" I understand that this has been up for deletion before. Rather than have to argue so vehemently for its salvation, why don't you just add the information you find so key to its existence?PacificBoy 20:41, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If you aren't asking that question, then you are doing things wrongly, and not in accordance with policy, and you don't have a leg to stand on for complaining when someone tells you that. If, as you just have, you are trying to make it Somebody Else's Problem to expand stubs, then you are wrong. Writing the encyclopaedia is not Somebody Else Problem. So here's your question reflected back at you: Why, if you think it so important that this stub be expanded that you nominate it for deletion, have you not worked on it yourself? Why are you being part of the very problem that you are decrying? Where was your effort to research the subject before nominating it for deletion? Where was your effort to look at a stub and think "How can this be expanded?"? Where was your effort to look at Wikipedia as an encyclopaedia to be written by you, rather than only by everyone else? What effort did you put into following deletion and editing policy and good practice, rather than taking the route of just tagging an article for deletion, with an unresearched nomination that was solely on the basis that both other people and you yourself hadn't worked on the article yet? And what makes you think that the approach that you are taking here is a good one for the project, that people should take? Uncle G (talk) 22:28, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Fine. You've bent over backward to defend your right to leave the article as a stub. I bow to you as the expert on the subject and its importance. All I know is that if I thought something was worth so much apoplexy, I'd want to share as much information on it as I could with the rest of the world. You apparently believe that keeping all the material secreted away in your little library of books on otter shit is more important than using that knowledge to expand a virtually empty article. You'll hear no more from me on the matter.PacificBoy 22:52, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If you aren't asking that question, then you are doing things wrongly, and not in accordance with policy, and you don't have a leg to stand on for complaining when someone tells you that. If, as you just have, you are trying to make it Somebody Else's Problem to expand stubs, then you are wrong. Writing the encyclopaedia is not Somebody Else Problem. So here's your question reflected back at you: Why, if you think it so important that this stub be expanded that you nominate it for deletion, have you not worked on it yourself? Why are you being part of the very problem that you are decrying? Where was your effort to research the subject before nominating it for deletion? Where was your effort to look at a stub and think "How can this be expanded?"? Where was your effort to look at Wikipedia as an encyclopaedia to be written by you, rather than only by everyone else? What effort did you put into following deletion and editing policy and good practice, rather than taking the route of just tagging an article for deletion, with an unresearched nomination that was solely on the basis that both other people and you yourself hadn't worked on the article yet? And what makes you think that the approach that you are taking here is a good one for the project, that people should take? Uncle G (talk) 22:28, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I really don't appreciate the condescension, Uncle G. I've been on Wikipedia for more than four years, and I've been on a couple of task forces, so trust me when I say I know what a "stub" is. Frankly, when I come across a stub that's nothing but a definition, I don't ask "How is it possible to expand this stub," but "Why, if it's such an important topic to a few individuals, have they themselves not worked to expand it beyond a wiktionary entry?" I understand that this has been up for deletion before. Rather than have to argue so vehemently for its salvation, why don't you just add the information you find so key to its existence?PacificBoy 20:41, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 12:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Otter, or delete. Worth a sentence there, but unexpandable as an actual article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:46, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge or delete. This is a dictionary definition. I'm sure it's a good word to know for Scrabble players, but no content indicating the importance of the topic. It's otter poop and it smells bad, we get that. Carrite (talk) 18:29, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I have expanded the article and added a reference but do not have access to Kruuk's book, mentioned above. The article seems to me clearly capable of further expansion but is already beyond a distionary definition. It is an adequate stub. Thincat (talk) 18:51, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- ... and I have now indicated the importance of surveying for spraint in otter surveys. I understand that otter surveys are of little or no interest to some editors. Thincat (talk) 19:32, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep There are lots of sources out there for this. I particularly like Matt Pagett (2007), What Shat That?: A Pocket Guide to Poop Identity which you may consult if you want to see a picture... Colonel Warden (talk) 19:20, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep decently sourced and more sources seem to exist. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 22:18, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not surprised the otters find the otter poo notable. ;-) Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:13, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - an expandable stub. Gandalf61 (talk) 15:28, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Additions to the article in the last few days have effectively rendered this nomination moot. Multiple sources demonstrate notability worthy for a stand alone article.--PinkBull 16:29, 3 August 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.