Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plonker

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. It's close, but consensus appears to lean delete. (as a side, I'm a Brit.) — Joseph Fox 00:04, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Plonker

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a straight dictionary definition of a British slang word. It is already listed on Wikitionary and this is where it rightly belongs, not here on Wikipedia Biker Biker (talk) 23:07, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as the nominator says, it's a WP:DICDEF, and is already listed on Wiktionary. LadyofShalott 00:23, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - If it's already on Wikitionary, then it looks like an "article" that would meet A5. smithers - talk 06:17, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - yes it exists on Wikt, however that does not automatically lead to a speedy (and A5 should not be used until this AFD reaches a consensus). In this particular case there are significant sources available showing cultural impact and the word has an etymology dating back to the mid 19th century (neither fact is mentioned or sourced on Wikt and the article has not been transwikified as the content is different). I believe there is sufficient in the available sources to expect that it is likely that the article can be improved in the near future to meet the GNG; this is sufficient to keep and mark for improvement rather than deletion. Fæ (talk) 11:14, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; Wikipedia is not a dictionary of slang. Powers ^T 18:00, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The various random cites showing the word to be used in slang to mean a variety of unflattering things belongs in Wiktionary, and not here. Edison (talk) 00:44, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is meant as an encyclopedia, not a lexicon.SwisterTwister talk 02:56, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Dictionary definition of a slang term. WP:NOTURBANDICTIONARY. It is a shame to lose an article referring to "chocolate willies," however... Carrite (talk) 04:09, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - DicDef yeah kinda, I initially intended to !vote D because of that ... but... historical use has changed and possibly WP:N because of that change. Slag (slang) has seen the same type of change in meaning, and I believe a lot of the above 'reflexive' D !votes above should re-examine their reasoning. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 05:07, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of coverage to meet WP:GNG. Lugnuts (talk) 07:01, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Where? Not a single one of the references in the article is actually about the word. Powers ^T 12:25, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the article. Lugnuts (talk) 13:56, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, none of those sources are about the word, which is what the GNG requires. They may talk about tangential topics and cover uses of the word, but they are not about the history and cultural impact of the word qua word. Powers ^T 17:21, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SOFIXIT. Lugnuts (talk) 17:42, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What's that supposed to mean? I'm supposed to invent some sources out of thin air? The whole point of this discussion is that such sources don't exist; I can't "SOFIX" that. Powers ^T 17:43, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per WP:DICDEF. Now what is this? Will each and every slang word receive an article? I don't think so. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 07:43, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Dictdef followed by usual Wikipedia "it is used in this book" primary source quote mining crap. If you want to play lexicographer, publish your essay on this word somewhere else. FuFoFuEd (talk) 13:20, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure who your comment is directed at but it plainly fails to meet the expectations of respect for other editors per Five pillars and being rude in AFDs tends to get noticed in the long term. You do not appear to have taken into account sources such as the academic paper on economic plonking, which is far better than "crap". Fæ (talk) 19:36, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I stand by my comment. To claim that an article about "economic ploking" (which is about pompous and empty statements in economic debates) is about the polysemic word "ploking" (the topic of this Wikipedia article) is utterly ridiculous. You might as well claim that this AfD is an article about Wikipedia because the word "Wikipedia" appears in the title of this page; WP:SIGCOV right there. You are wholly unsuitable as an AfD participant, let alone as a Wikipedia administrator (who has the power to close AfDs) if you think that's the case. FuFoFuEd (talk) 22:08, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - To expand on that, this Wikipedia article does not begin with "A plonker is a person who talks nonsense with gravitas as if he understands well what he is saying. Plonker economists have been widely reported to exist..." I see we're missing an article on dumbass--and how many libel lawsuits were over that, prolly more than the one for "plonker", but we're surely missing this awesome dumbass-related news [1], never mind this whole book [2]--but we do have one on idiot in no small part because that was a legal and medical concept. FuFoFuEd (talk) 22:42, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Attacking me in an AFD does not help make your point, it only highlights your failure to comply with WP:5P #4. Fæ (talk) 04:34, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as others have explained above. Neutrality^talk 01:16, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am not an expert on UK colloquialisms, but I am not prepared to take lightly Fae's view about cultural impact. I have enough experience here with that editor's work to discount FiFoFuEd's critique. And some of the arguments for deletion make no sense whatsoever: that we have no article on dumbass is no reason why we should have one, and even less of an argument that we shouldn't have one on this term -- its one of the classic non-reasons. (I think, in fact that yes, every common noun in the English language used with even moderate frequency can probably justify having an article here if enough work is done on it. Slang especially, if it is in common use. There's always a meaning behind it, and if the term is widely used, the concept that meaning conveys will be notable.) DGG ( talk ) 03:37, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. In general, I like the principle explained in WP:STUB:

A dictionary article is about a word or phrase and will often have several different definitions for it
An encyclopedia article is about the subject denoted by the title but usually has only one definition (or in some cases, several definitions that are largely the same) but there may be several equivalent words (synonyms) or phrases for it.

By that definition, this is clearly a dictionary article. I wouldn't make that an absolute distinction: I can agree that the history of the changing meanings of a word, properly documented, could become encyclopedic because of the light it sheds on society; but I don't think this one gets there. JohnCD (talk) 21:58, 29 August 2011 (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.