Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bloviate (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   delete. After two previous discussions, and a long time for encyclopedic content to be found, this has still not developed beyond a dictionary definition. JohnCD (talk) 15:42, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Bloviate
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD (View log  •  AfD statistics)

This is an encyclopedia article on a word.

The big problem with 'encyclopedia' articles on words or simple terms is they always contain the same thing. First they define the term 'Bloviate is a term that means... then they list a few places or people that the term has been used by, and then they have a reference section, and it usually points to dictionaries. and then... nothing else.

Because of this, most terms aren't capable of being made into a true encyclopedic article; and it's ultimately because the centre of them is the term. There are some that can make it, but they're rare.

On the contrary, encyclopedia articles are about an underlying concept. For example Wikipedia's synergy is about non linear systems and gives numerous examples of real synergies in various fields (as opposed to the use of the word synergy), whereas the wiktionary article just defines it, and probably should have a few more usages than it does right now.

The trouble is bloviate is just a dictionariac article; it somewhat follows the layout of encyclopedia articles, but really it's just a badly written dictionary article on the word. It takes more than being quoted by a president and Bill O'Reilly to survive; it doesn't matter who said the word, the article has to be important for the underlying concept, not who said what. If you're about a term, and you only have definition and usage then that is dictionary territory.

I agree that the term is a notable term; but wikipedia articles aren't on terms. Plenty of terms are far more notable than this, and are not suitable either. Being notable isn't sufficient; the article must avoid transgressing all of the policies for it to be kept.

And it fails to do that, the article violates WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary and hence, regrettably deserves to die a wikipedic death (per afd policy). Given the existence of bloviate I'm calling for delete. - Wolfkeeper  07:06, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: I've notified the participants of Articles for deletion/Bloviate (2nd nomination) about this AfD. Cunard (talk) 08:50, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions.  —-  Wolfkeeper  06:46, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Wiktionary already has it. - Mgm|(talk) 12:34, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Every stub article starts are looking like a definition, what separates them is how far they can be taken beyond that definition . This article is little more than a definition coupled with some unreferenced claims. The nominator is spot on here.  This is and there is no indication that it will ever be anything more than a definition.  Looking over the previous AFDs there was a lot of  WP:OTHERSTUFF discussions along with many editors pointing to the topic's WP:POTENTIAL.  It's 3 1/2 years later and the article really hasn't improved much. --RadioFan (talk) 13:08, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Soft redirect to Wiktionary bloviate. I find the information beyond dictionary-style content to be trivial. Does it benefit an encyclopedia user to learn that the word is used in the New York Times and The O'Reilly Factor? Cnilep (talk) 16:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep for the reasons outlined in Articles for deletion/Bloviate. There's more then a definition here, including history. It does need work, however. — V = I * R  (talk to Ω) 15:15, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Question: I would summarize the 'keep' arguments at the first AfD as, "Bloviate is a 'rich' word, which has particular relevance to (esp. American) politics." Is that a fair paraphrase of the reasons you have in mind? Cnilep (talk) 18:07, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment the problem with the arguments made in the original AFD is the article is unreferenced beyond the dictionary definition. Any additional material int he article beyond the definition doesn't meet WP:GNG because it's not referenced.  The history here appears to be original research.--RadioFan (talk) 18:42, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I call bullshit on the 'rich' word theory. If it's a rich word, where is the encyclopedic richness in the article? Or elsewhere? If the usage of the word bloviate was at the centre of international incidents or major advertising campaigns or something then it could be kept, but I don't see anything like that anywhere.- Wolfkeeper  19:00, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Only three articles link this word. Two cite it as a synonym for some better term, the third, Warren G. Harding, defines the word differently than does this article. The other links are from discussions much like this one. Yappy2bhere (talk) 06:52, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Words used by notable people certainly belong in dictionaries, but being used by notable people isn't sufficient cause to give them entries in an encyclopedia.  I appreciate the sincerity of editors who believe that this word can be shown to have some sort of greater significance, but, after two-and-a-half years without proper demonstration, I suggest that they work on something in userspace, and get back to the community of editors when they have something to show it. — SlamDiego  &#8592;T  07:39, 15 December 2009 (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.