Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big Bad (3rd nomination)


 * 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. The support for keeping (with the assertion that sourcing in the article has been improved over the discussion) is equal to the support for all other solutions combined. Since the purpose of this discussion is solely to determine whether the article should be kept or deleted, I find that there is no prejudice against the immediate initiation of an effort to merge this content into another suitable article. BD2412 T 05:08, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Big Bad
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No evidence this fictional term passes WP:GNG, WP:NFICTION and like. BEFORE fails to find anything that is not an in-universe WP:PLOT summary. Prior AfDs (2007, 2011) were closed as keep because the term is used in some scholarly works, but the problem is that the term itself is never analyzed (see also Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary. All there is out there is some mentions in passing that this term is used to denote some villains on this show. I guess we could redirect this to antagonist or such, but it might be a bit of a WP:SURPRISE. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:53, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  08:53, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:44, 4 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete This term is too widely used at least in discussions of works to support its coverage is such a narrow way.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:10, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a complaint about the quality of the article rather than an objection to the article itself; AfD is not cleanup. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:09, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep; seems like a decently sourced article about a concept that has a big role in Buffy and that is used elsewhere. Clearly a term of art in Buffyology, and clearly the the subject of some academic attention; I came across a published paper called "The Big Bad and the Big 'Aha'" in a recent collection from Lexington, for example. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:09, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Per WP:NOTDICT and per nom. A pure dicdef mixed with fancruft. I love TVTropes, but Wikipedia is not TVTropes.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 20:48, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Everything is sourced to scholarly analysis. If we're dismissing scholarly analysis as "fancruft", we're in trouble. Josh Milburn (talk) 07:22, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * If we say everything is notable just because it had a brief mention in a scholarly analysis, we're in trouble. C wut I did thar?ZXCVBNM (TALK) 19:33, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I've no idea what you did "thar". If you think you're describing my view, you're mistaken. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:00, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep The nomination says that "Prior AfDs (2007, 2011) were closed as keep because the term is used in some scholarly works" and so the main problem seems to be WP:IDHT. But it's entertaining to consider the WP:DICDEF aspect.  The point of that policy is not that we should delete anything but that "In Wikipedia, things are grouped into articles based on what they are, not what they are called by."  So, it is instructive to see how many titles we have for this concept.  Let's start with:
 * Antagonist
 * Adversary
 * Archenemy
 * Bad guy
 * Bad Wolf
 * Big Bad Wolf
 * Black hat
 * Boss (video gaming)
 * Enemy
 * Mr Big
 * Supervillain
 * It appears that we don't actually want all these related topics crushed together and, even if we did, the result is unlikely to be stable and so we'd better keep all the history in case we need to unpick it. Deletion would be disruptive in such circumstances and so is best avoided per WP:PRESERVE. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:22, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Setting aside that you linked a disambig and a TV show episode name, a lot of those can be justified to be different concepts in literary theory or other topics (real world crime, video game design theory, etc.). Whereas Big Bad is nothing but a plausible redirect to one of those (or the disambig at adversary). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 02:22, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Andrew, I would suggest you retract the needless personal attack The nomination says that "Prior AfDs (2007, 2011) were closed as keep because the term is used in some scholarly works" and so the main problem seems to be WP:IDHT. Yes, the nom is wrong on this point, but in the opposite way to how you claim: 2007 was closed as "no consensus" with a small majority in favour of deleting/merging, and 2011 was closed by a non-admin (now a blocked sockpuppeteer) as "keep" despite there only being three "keep" !votes, one "keep/merge" !vote, two "delete"s and one "undecided" (apparently leaning delete) -- clearly "no consensus" at best. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 07:18, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. StrayBolt (talk) 18:48, 4 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep   and other reliable sources do use the expression.    D r e a m Focus  22:07, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:GOOGLEHITS again, the term is used but not analyzed, pure WP:DICTDEF usage example. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 02:22, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Merge to Buffy the Vampire Slayer (where the last paragraph of #Characters already mentions this concept) or List of Buffyverse villains and supernatural beings (which needs decruftifying, but might have a future). Scholars seem to focus on BTVS only for this topic, so better cover it in one of the show's main articles rather than getting rid of it completely. – sgeureka t•c 08:45, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. Pure PLOT. Fails GNG/NFICTION.Kacper IV (talk) 12:27, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Redirect - It should be redirected somewhere, maybe a sentence added to Antagonist and redirected to Buffy as the main usage? The MTV article is the only in-depth analysis. Otherwise, it's just passing mentions. TTN (talk) 21:58, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Redirect Per Andrew Davidson. This term as defined in the bare-bones WP:DICDEF article we have at present is synonymous (read: redundant) with antagonist, which is the only context I've ever heard it used in and the only sense defined in our article. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 13:03, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I would also be happy with a merge I was assuming, without looking at both articles too closely, that they are of similar quality, but assuming StrayBolt's claim that the antagonist article is generally inferior to this one, I would be happy this article's content replacing that one and a new lead paragraph being created. But the two are obviously synonymous and redundant, and "Big Bad" is still somewhat slang-y (apparently totally dismissed by the compilers of Merriam-Webster) so "Antagonist" is clearly the better of the two titles. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 05:17, 9 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Antagonist per TTN. Most of the sources are either passing mentions of the phrase, or just uses of the phrase without any kind of explanation or analysis.  The fact that this neologism has essentially entered modern language as a synonym for an antagonist means that it should be mentioned on that page, but there is really not enough substantial coverage that would justify it being its own article.  TTN's suggestion of adding some brief information on its usage to the Antagonist page and citing Buffy as its origin seems to be the most sensible solution.  Rorshacma (talk) 17:17, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - Have added sources with explanation and analysis. Have even seen 2 college theses (not PhD) on the subject. Many popular RS websites use it without mentioning Buffy. Passes WP:GNG. It is not a synonym of antagonist. An antagonist is not necessarily a Big Bad. StrayBolt (talk) 19:32, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It still seems to be mostly passing mentions. This would easily fit under Antagonist's "Types" section. They are a type of antagonist. TTN (talk) 20:04, 7 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep per improvement during AfD. Thank you Straybolt. Regarding WP:NOTDICT claims, see also: Antihero, Low-life, Black sheep. Lightburst (talk) 01:45, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment The new additions don't convince me, they feel very much like WP:SYNTH. The articles use the term "Big Bads" but don't actually discuss the term.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 06:37, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * This is not an article solely (or even primarily) about the term "Big Bad"; it us about the use, purpose, practice (etc.) of Big Bads in Buffy and other programmes. It's pretty clear that the articles cited (and others) discuss/explore this. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:50, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, it very much should be about the term, because otherwise it is obviously WP:SYNTH.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 22:10, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * That's not obvious at all - more, I think it's wrong, even silly. Do you think our articles on hero or damsel in distress should be only about the term? We're an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. It's striking that you think that this article should be deleted because Wikipedia is not a dictionary, but when content is added to move it beyond a definition, you insist the article "very much should" be about the term, rather than the concept. Between the snide comments and the apparently shifting goalposts, my ability to assume good faith is seeping away. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:47, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Has anyone looked at the sources at antagonist? Seems like more than half are just dictionary definitions, one looks like a homework assignment for students to cut-and-paste together a glossary. Some go to other pages than originally listed. Could one of the Redirect editors or someone fix that page first? I would expect better for the literary term. StrayBolt (talk) 08:05, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:ONUS. It is perfectly acceptable to believe the two topics are redundant with each other and !vote based on which title would be better, regardless of the current state of either one of the articles. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 01:03, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Coincidentally, the MW def for "bad" uses "big bad" as a recent example: "The fam has to work together to fight the film's big bad, a villain known as The Taskmaster." — Abby Gardner, Glamour, "The First Trailer for Marvel Studios’ Black Widow Is Finally Here," 3 Dec. 2019 StrayBolt (talk) 08:28, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Ironically, that example conflicts with the definition given in our article -- Taskmaster can't be a season-ending villain in a TV show when Black Widow is a movie and he/she/it has never been mentioned in any of the prior movies (let alone the fact that if Black Widow is anything like any of the other Marvel spy-type movies so far, the trailer's implied primary antagonist will actually be either a red herring killed off halfway through the movie, a secret goodie/antihero, a comic relief non-villain, or not actually in the movie all that much and really a puppet of a secret villain not portrayed as such in the trailer. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 01:52, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * When I posted it, I thought someone would have gone with, "Ironically, that example shows it is not an atomic term because 'big' is an adjective." That example does prefix it, "the film's big bad" but you say the sentence is wrong on many levels. I haven't reached a conclusion on its usage with films (more on your other post). I haven't updated the definition with what I have found. Also, language, definitions, and usage are always a little fuzzy. People will stretch meanings of popular terms, like big data. StrayBolt (talk) 02:48, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying the sentence is wrong on any level. It might be (probably is?) wrong on a factual level, but on a grammatical/syntactical/semantic level it makes perfect sense. "Big bad" is quite a common synonym for "antagonist". That being said, having looked at it more closely, Webster is most definitely wrong to cite it as an example of "bad" as an "adjective", and even the "noun" senses Webster gives don't really fit. Perhaps they consider "big bad" as we use it, and as Gardner uses it, to be a non-standard slang abbreviation of "big bad guy", wherein "bad" is an adjective. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 03:11, 9 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment: Recent improvements from are excellent. The article now steps beyond both plot summary and dictionary definition, and the wide range of sources display notability. Meanwhile, some legitimate questions have been raised about a possible redirect target. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:18, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't see any substantial improvement to the article, nor anything that removes the implied redundancy. It seems very much like you and a number of the other "keep" !voters were unfamiliar with this term (never heard of it?) before coming to this AFD and assuming that the term must not be synonymous with "antagonist" because our article said so. I have seen this phrase used as a synonym for "antagonist" in dozens of video essays and entertainment news pieces, and I see no reason to believe it is particularly associated with the academic field of Buffyology or that in that context it has some special meaning meriting a separate article. Conversely, one rarely hears of the primary antagonists of season-long story arcs of similar shows like Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. being referred to specifically as "big bads" (yes, sources do exist, but it's much more common to simply use it as a descriptor for a one-off antagonist in a film, even one who is the primary antagonist in one of a series of films and is never mentioned again. Even if a source can be found that says Whedon or one of the other creative forces behind Buffy coined the term (the article currently makes this claim, but there is no citation, and the following sentence is attributed to Durand in a manner that implies it bears no relation to the preceding sentence), that would still only be etymological data for one of the synonyms of "antagonist". Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 01:19, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, there are sources for the news search for "John Garrett" "big bad", I get 22. For "John Garrett" "antagonist", I get 28. Small difference, not rarely hears. And there were a few usages in articles already. An appropriate analogy for "big bad" in films would be a supervillian across multiple films like Thanos or Palpatine or Sauron. Your search for Ultron is getting many hits because there is much buzz/speculation as to who will replace Thanos as MCU's "big bad". Do you object to MTV News citation, "Discover The Secret Origin Of TV's 'Big Bad'"? StrayBolt (talk) 15:52, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Hijiri88, are you talking to me? You say "It seems very much like you and a number of the other "keep" !voters were unfamiliar with this term (never heard of it?) before coming to this AFD and assuming that the term must not be synonymous with "antagonist" because our article said so". I had definitely come across (and used) the phrase "big bad" before seeing this AfD, and I'm not sure why you would think otherwise. And I wouldn't (didn't, don't) think "Big Bad" is synonymous with "antagonist". It strikes me as more specific - all big bads are antagonists, not all antagonists are big bads. All this is by-the-by, of course; I think we should keep the article because of the existence of decent sources, not because of my own beliefs or (non-)familiarity with the term. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:40, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I say you seem unfamiliar with the term because you take the article's word that it is specifically associated with Buffy. It may have originated with that show, but nowadays this is certainly not the case. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 23:38, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I just noticed the all big bads are antagonists, not all antagonists are big bads bit -- yeah, that's correct, and I apologize for blurring the line on that point. That being said, it's quite common to have a single article on a [broad topic] like antagonist that covers both "major" or "primary" antagonists ("big bads") and lesser antagonists together. The fact that "big bad" is still somewhat WP:SLANG-y to the point that even Merriam-Webster is apparently unfamiliar with it and cites its usage as one of "bad" as an adjective rather than as an independent term means we should give priority to the more widely-known and formal term. If you think that the antagonist article is too long and detailed and we should split it into articles on "primary" and "secondary" antagonists ... well, you're wrong, since the current text of Antagonist falls significantly short of 1,000 words. Maybe at some point in the future that will be the case and a discussion can be had about breaking the article into two articles on "primary" and "secondary" antagonists (though probably not with the titles "Big Bad" and "little bad"). The existence of sources that use this wording is frankly irrelevant, since it is essentially synonymous with the more formal "primary antagonist" and "major antagonist" and no one is saying that the concept that lies behind all these different words is not notable. (It would, however, be OR to take the neologism "Big Bad" and write an article under that title based on all the thousands of sources that use different words while implying that Joss Whedon created this concept that has since been retro-fitted onto hundreds of other fictional works.) Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 06:29, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I have not taken the article's word for anything. I agree that "it's quite common to have a single article on a WP:BROADTOPIC like antagonist that covers both "major" or "primary" antagonists ("big bads") and lesser antagonists together" - and there's certainly an editorial decision to be made about whether the concept of "big bads" is covered in the article on antagonists or in its own article. We clearly disagree there, but that takes us beyond AfD; if we're discussing whether we should have one article or two, then we agree that the content should be kept. (Though your "vote" was for a redirect - have you changed your mind?) And yes, I agree that "big bad" sounds like slang, which is why I drew attention to the fact that it's clearly a term of art in Buffyology; whether something's slang or not, if it gets some traction in academia or the press, that's important for an encyclopedia (compare: mansplain, manspread, bullshitting...). An Encyclopedia of Buffyology would surely have an entry, were one published. And I hear you on OR worries, but, again, that sounds like an editorial concern, and not a reason to support deletion. Josh Milburn (talk) 07:44, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Though your "vote" was for a redirect - have you changed your mind? My !vote was for redirect for the simple reason that the present title should redirect to the more commonly-known, established and formal title, without any judgement on which article's current or potential future content was superior or worth keeping. I am not a fan of either article in their present state, and I do think the onus is on the editors currently !voting "keep" to (for example) add a source specifically verifying that the term "Big Bad" originates with the creators of Buffy, either now or after this discussion closes (assuming the result is either "keep" or "no consensus"). I hear you on OR worries, but, again, that sounds like an editorial concern, and not a reason to support deletion. Well, I don't think anyone here believes the page wouldn't at least make a worthwhile redirect, so there's no point arguing that editorial concerns over what in the article should be kept are not a matter for AFD; can you and I at least agree that the content would be just as at home in an article titled either antagonist or primary antagonist, perhaps under a section heading in one of those articles entitled "Big Bad"? Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 08:53, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * add a source specifically verifying that the term "Big Bad" originates with the creators of Buffy That was the first thing I added, days ago. The MTV News article says "they all have an over-arching, season long villain that showrunners -- and characters -- like to call the Big Bad...can all be traced back to one show: "Buffy the Vampire Slayer."... writer and former showrunner Marti Noxon...it was a little harder to remember the exact moment of origin...I would say Joss came up with that on his own...it's an expression Noxon recalled was bandied about the writers room long before the characters themselves started using the phrase on television…." Most of the sources have more details than I've added to the article. For a short def from me, it would be, "season-long archvillain" (but archvillain is a redirect). Another def has said "evil and powerful adversary". I think the def has been stretched some with usage/time, but antagonist is too general. StrayBolt (talk) 16:21, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * That was the first thing I added, days ago. I was referring to the statement in the preceding paragraph, currently not attributed to any source, at least from appearances, that the term originates with the creators of Buffy. The statement that the first instance the phrase was used in the show itself was in Episode A is a separate matter. It's quite late here, so I have no inclination to check at the moment, but does that source also verify the statement that I was referring to? Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 16:45, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * This is in response to Hijiri Great - so you're in favour of a redirect, perhaps with content merged. I'm in favour of keeping the article, but we're agreed that perhaps the content is worth keeping (somewhere!). I am not sure that the content would be just as at home in another article - hence my "vote" to "keep" the article - but I don't think it would be not at home elsewhere. I have added a source to the article, though I do not have an opinion on whether the term was first used in Buffy. If you are concerned about the claim, and you've checked the sources that are apparently citations for the claim, you could add a fact tag to the article or remove it. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:28, 10 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Merge perhaps to List of Buffyverse villains and supernatural beings. A term for some of the major villains but I'm not seeing in the sources enough that this warrants a separate article as a concept of its own. Reywas92Talk 08:13, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * That list has about zero notability, though. It would definitely not survive an AfD, IMO.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 10:44, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   06:36, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - The article is very dictionary-like, but remember other terms like Antihero have their own article. Foxnpichu (talk) 15:21, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * "Antihero" is an established word that has been in use since the 17th century, though; the present article is largely redundant with antagonist (which if it were a more filled-out article would probably be primarily about "big bads") and is named for a slang-esque word that our article claims only goes back to the 1990s. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 01:10, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * That's one of the reasons why it's just a weak keep. Foxnpichu (talk) 11:15, 13 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep or merge to Villain. Hyperbolick (talk) 21:53, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Quite a lot of days have passed since somebody commented on here, and nobody can agree on anything. Is this just gonna close as No Consensus? Foxnpichu (talk) 13:53, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep I think the improvements made to this article since the AFD are quite impressive and help establish sufficient notability to warrant it be kept. — Hunter Kahn 03:37, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:HEY. Seems to pass GNG.4meter4 (talk) 19:57, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note Many of the above keep !votes are based on the Heymann Standard, but they seem to assume, without any regard for the ongoing discussion in this AFD itself, that the newly added content is an improvement and didn't actually make the article's problems worse. The opening sentence of StrayBolt's newly added "On other television series" section is texbtbook OR, and anyone saying that the article should now be kept because it includes unsourced (or dubiously sourced) policy-violating material should probably have their !votes disregarded accordingly. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 07:10, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * What you are saying is far from clear. Maybe you can let the closing admin make the call about what people's views are based on and what is "textbook OR"? Can I advise you stop making assumptions about everyone else? I really didn't appreciate your assumptions about me above (which, I did my best to explain, were inaccurate - inaccurate is a polite word) and I suspect "[m]any of the above keep !vote[r]s" won't appreciate your assumptions and insinuations about them. If your arguments are so clearly compelling, why don't you let them speak for themselves? Josh Milburn (talk) 07:48, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybe you can let the closing admin make the call about what people's views are based on and what is "textbook OR"? I have never once, in fourteen years editing Wikipedia, seen a sliver of evidence that all or even most AFD closers -- even in HEY cases -- go to the article and do source-check before finding out if the HEY !votes are valid. Technically, they are allowed assume that such !votes are valid unless someone points out on the AFD that they are not. My doing so is perfectly valid, and I don't appreciate your trying to silence me.
 * As for who is !voting for what reason: I will let the "keep" !voters speak for themselves, and of the two keep !votes in the last eight days, one of them explicitly cited HEY and the other explicitly cited "the improvements made to this article since the AFD [was opened]".
 * BTW, your apparent poor understanding of our policy on SYNTH, which you expressed in your responses to Zxcvbnm further up this discussion, is very unbecoming of an admin. I'm not sure if it would be worse to be sincerely unaware of such problems or to pretend as much so you can "win" this debate.
 * Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 08:28, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * So I think you are saying the first sentence of that section is OR. Citing sources that happen to use the phrase Big Bad in reference to the recently expanding trend for genre TV shows to have season-long story arcs as demonstrating that "the use of Big Bads has become common in TV science fiction and fantasy series" is textbook OR. What has become common is the use of season-long (or multi-season) story arcs, and those arcs having primary antagonists is practically a given. Both sources say the trend is the BB, not "season-long story arcs", so my sentence matches the sources. I was trying to summarize this paragraph: Following Buffy, Big Bads were suddenly de rigueur for all TV sci-fi and fantasy series… And because the RS said it was a trend, I liked to include another supportive source and I thought this paragraph matched: While some narrative franchises… recent trend… seasonal antagonist… "Big Bad" There is no WP:SYNTH, just "A and A therefore A." Therefore, the maintenance template should be removed. StrayBolt (talk) 10:12, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Hijiri88: I am perfectly aware of what "our policy on SYNTH" is, and I did not display a misunderstanding of it. All I said was that this is not an article about a term, but about a concept. Whatever my opinion on the current status of the article, I stand by that. "BTW", If you want to talk about unbecoming behaviour, perhaps we could talk about responding to a recommendation that you tone down the snide accusations with a flurry of snide accusations? Josh Milburn (talk) 12:28, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually, let's be clear about this. What I said above was that it was not obvious that the article "very much should be about the term, because otherwise it is obviously WP:SYNTH". And you think that this shows that I have a "poor understanding of our policy on SYNTH" (or am pretending that I do in bad faith)? That's ludicrous. Or are you referring to something else that I said? Either back up what you're saying or retract it. (Bonus points if you manage to do either without accusing someone else of incompetence or acting in bad faith.) Josh Milburn (talk) 12:35, 20 December 2019 (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.