Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Know-it-all

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. Valley2city^‽ 20:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Know-it-all

Just a dictionary definition. No real potential for expansion. Article already exists at Wiktionary. Powers ^T 14:27, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteIt is already in Wikitionary.Jamiebijania (talk) 14:33, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - While this is currently nothing more than a dictionary definition, it most definitely has the potential to be expanded. If you look through the article's history, you'll see that it once had a *lot* more information, which for one reason or another has been removed. The question to ask is should Wikipedia have an article with this title?, and for me that is an easy yes. This means the article should be improved, sourced, and expanded; not deleted. The first step would be for someone to go through the page history and resurrect all the bits and pieces that are worthy of inclusion in the article, while sourcing them. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 15:39, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 15:39, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Valid though Linguist's point is, in this case I'm tempted to suggest a redirect to Smart alec. What do you think, Linguist?—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 15:57, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's a possibility too, although I'd have to think about how close in meaning smart alec and know-it-all are. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 16:16, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per LaL. —Angr 16:05, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In fact, let's merge Nerd girl, Besserwisser, Smart alec and Know-it-all. I bet we can get one encyclopaedic article out of all those, but we don't need a separate article for every synonym; that's Wiktionary's bag, not ours.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 16:12, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Strong agree Yes. What is needed is an article on the concept or stereotype, not each expression.Borock (talk) 16:21, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Smart alec. ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 16:14, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - (2 edit conflicts grrr) Here are a couple of revisions that show more material, that, while not sourced, probably can be. [1], [2]. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 16:16, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Room for development, as for a great many dicdefs. possible redirect can be considered on the talk p. DGG (talk) 16:34, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a notable neologism that can be expanded/improved. KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:56, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep My first thought was that if you know where to put the hyphens, then you know what this means. However, know-it-all is linked from a wide variety of articles, usually character lists where one person happens to be a know-it-all. Mandsford (talk) 20:16, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- … which was the problem with the article. It was, in its earliest versions, a classic example of cargo cult encyclopaedia article writing, being a long list of occurrences of know-it-alls in fiction that editors were hoping would magically, through gaining some mysterious critical mass, turn into an encyclopaedia article. An encyclopaedia article is written, as demonstrated, by finding sources that discuss the subject of know-it-alls.
  And the surprise (at least to everyone here who has been mis-led by the writings of the cargo cultists) is that it's not actually addressed in sources as a fictional character stereotype at all. Uncle G (talk) 12:40, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does that mean "delete"?—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 22:46, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ or redirect, I don't think things should be kept around indefinitely because you think they "probably" can sourced. How old is this now? Find reliable sources discussing the topic of know-it-alls or lose it. RenegadeMonster (talk) 00:30, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I see it's been rewritten and I suppose we have to keep it now. Looking at the contents page of the Pincus book I see we also have scope for articles on "silent types", "social butterflies" (blue link!) and "overly sensitive persons" among others. RenegadeMonster (talk) 10:21, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The rewrite's got some worthy stuff in it, but I'm still of the view that we don't need separate short articles on Smart alec and Know-it-all and Nerd girl, and I still think we'd be better off with one medium-length article addressing the whole concept.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 22:23, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I still prefer merging to a having a standalone article. RenegadeMonster (talk) 09:40, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Markovich292 05:32, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — When I created this article several years ago, I had eventually envisioned this article as including statements (sourced from psychological journals and magazine articles) more accurately defining the term, describing why people sometimes behave as know-it-alls, how one can deal with such people, etc. Yes, there was the list of fictional know-it-alls (a valid part of the article to an extent), and unsourced statements (some, admittedly, were mine), etc. This article is certainly more than a dicdef, and definitely has potential to be expanded. With some effort can even be written into a good article. [[Briguy52748 (talk) 22:23, 31 March 2009 (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.