Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shouting match

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 no consensus. good reasons on both sides, no consensus likely to emerge. TravellingCari 16:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shouting match

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

This is one of a long list of "adjective noun" subjects where there is nothing beyond the obvious meaning. Here there is an attempt to enhance the one-sentence dictionary-like definition with sociological observations with a tenuous relationship with the subject. Bongomatic (talk) 04:28, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was waiting for User:Runningonbrains to respond, because he/she seems to know a lot of information about the deletion policy. The goal of this article was to try to expand it with information, but as I said, I would at least like to know what User:Runningonbrains has to say. -- IRP ☎ 04:33, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Better to have an article on anger. There is so little to be said about shouting matches that the article wanders into another subject after 2 sentences. Redddogg (talk) 07:43, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE RIGHT NOW! Nothing more than a definition with some weird WP:OR and (as Redddogg pointed out) a completely different topic tacked on. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:18, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nomination is vague and fails to establish reasons why this stub cannot be improved in accordance with our editing policy. The topic is of considerable importance for Wikipedia and so contemplation of it will be especially rewarding. I shall add a little to the article now. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:23, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it is important to understand shouting matches. However the place for that is the article on anger, of which shouting matches are a manisfestation. Redddogg (talk) 18:34, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, anger is a different topic. Shouting matches are more about a failure to communicate or find agreement. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:15, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with User:Colonel Warden. -- IRP ☎ 14:25, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this belongs in a dictionary or similar thing. Not an encyclopedia --PrincessBrat (talk) 15:37, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 14:58, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 14:59, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:DICTIONARY brianlucas (talk) 19:18, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Neutral. ~~With all respect to the work done here, it just doesn't qualify as an appropriate entry, as I understand the "dictdef" rules~~. --Lockley (talk) 22:48, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For everybody saying "it should be deleted because it belongs in the dictionary" should give a more detailed reason. How could it be a definition if it has encyclopedic content? -- IRP ☎ 00:16, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The official difference between a dictionary entry and an encyclopedia entry is here: [[1]]. IMO this case is a judgment call, because a shouting match is an observable human-communication event, like an Awkward silence or screaming, which both also have their own legit entries. So... you know what? After looking more closely, I'm changing my vote to 'neutral'. The article needs a good edit, but, as part of the category of articles on Oral communication, it might deserve to stay. --Lockley (talk) 00:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This seems more like an arguement to delete the even more crappy Awkward silence dictdef! :-).Yobmod (talk) 20:02, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The problem isn't that it is now a dictdef, it's that editors don't see how it could ever be expanded to be anything else. Add a "shouting matches in pop culture" section? "Historical development of shouting matches"? "Socioeconomic impact"? The title describes what it is, and there is then nothing more to say, hence no sources to write an encylopedia entry on. Unless sources appear, showing that psychologists or socialogists have written about this, the arguments for keep seem moot; There is simply nothing that can be written beyond "Shouting matches are matches in which people shout. they occur in many contexts, a random list is given below (disquised as an article).Yobmod (talk) 19:58, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a legitimate topic, there's plenty of encyclopic material on it. As Colonel Warden and others have amply shown. --Firefly322 (talk) 20:22, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- per above reasoning, which hasn't been sufficiently addressed. Seems obviously notable, only question is one of where to put it, how to structure it, etc.JJJ999 (talk) 05:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. To the extent it's a legitimate topic (which is much less than is present in the article), it's multiple topics which only have the name in common. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:02, 7 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.