Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Creepiness


 * 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. (Withdrawn by nominator) (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:35, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Creepiness

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article is written as a humor article, also WP:NAD Pure RED  &#124; talk to me  &#124; 16:38, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Withdrawn by nominator: After reviewing lots of other similar articles on WP, I do feel that this page has its place. In first few days or so it was still a "delete" in my mind; however, as it stands now, I see its value. Per WP:WDAFD, as there are dissenting views on the topic, this discussion has to stay open until reviewed by an admin. Thank you for your feedback everyone, I appreciate it. Pure RED &#124;  talk to me   &#124; 21:15, 8 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete Nothing encyclopedic about the article or the topic. The article defines a word and gives subjective, arbitrary examples of its use. Indeed, WP:NAD. Largoplazo (talk) 17:06, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete As Largoplazo.Naraht (talk) 17:36, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 30 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete Not an article. Artw (talk) 20:49, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - Or merge any salvageable part in Technophobia, Phobia, Fear or Mobile phone tracking. Appears to be a list of trivia.  — Paleo  Neonate  – 22:22, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. Article has been expanded and the topic is clearly notable. The reference to the internet being described as increasingly creepy should be removed from the lede as it's a piece of trivia and presumably the reason why the article was misunderstood by one participant to be humorous. WP:NAD is all very fine but I don't see how it applies here: the article is not about the word, it's about the concept of creepiness, and that's clearly shown in the newly added sources, like this one . – Uanfala 23:15, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala 23:16, 30 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete Far too broad, fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE. South Nashua (talk) 00:44, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - Looks like it exists solely for someone to hype their study. Plus, it started a domino effect when the editor who created it misused redirect, pushing people from the long-stable magazine article Creepy to here, even though "Creepy" and "Creepiness" are two different words — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tenebrae (talk • contribs) 2:17, August 31, 2017 UTC (UTC)
 * For the record, I am completely unaffiliated with the study mentioned in the article, its authors, or Knox College.--Prisencolin (talk) 03:35, 31 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete, or possibly transwikify to wiktionary per concerns over WP:NAD. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, after all. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 02:21, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * If not already in the dictionary, I fully agree that it should be there. — Paleo  Neonate  – 02:26, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong keep, article needs some work for sure but the subject clearly notable. It is not longer just a three sentence dictionary defintion stub so the first four or so editors in this article should consider recasting their votes. --Prisencolin (talk) 03:57, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep clearly a notable phenomenon in the same vein as cuteness. Of course it's not going to look like an article when you nominate it for deletion less than 20 minutes after creation. It's a new article, give the editors time to work on it. Sro23 (talk) 05:38, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Reply: It's been a day and the article essentially looks the way it did when it was created. If you don't want to run the risk of having your article being scratched, use draftspace until its ready, or at least be able to prove the topic's significance. Sorry you disagree. Pure RED  &#124; talk to me  &#124; 13:39, 31 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete: This seems like a broad-as-a-barn, flimsy, dictionary-esque article. It seems to be confused whether it wants to be an article or an essay. D ARTH B OTTO talk • cont 07:30, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep The topic is clearly notable as there's an entire book about it and numerous academic papers including:
 * Leakiness and creepiness in app space
 * The cost of creepiness: How online behavioral advertising affects consumer purchase intention
 * On the nature of creepiness
 * Antecedents and Outcomes of Perceived Creepiness in Online Personalized Communications
 * How we decide who's creepy
 * Defining Creepiness
 * An examination of intuitive judgements of “creepiness”.
 * On the eeriness of service robots with emotional capabilities
 * A theory of creepy: technology, privacy and shifting social norms
 * So, the hasty nomination clearly fails WP:BEFORE and WP:BITE. The reference to WP:NAD is the common error of supposing that a short stub is a dictionary entry.  As that policy says, this is a "perennial source of confusion" and so it is not a reason to delete. Andrew D. (talk) 21:17, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Reply: Prisencolin has some 40,000 edits--so I can very safely say that WP:BITE does not apply here. I do appreciate the input here, particularly on the WP:NAD topic. -- Pure RED &#124; talk to me  &#124; 21:21, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Prisencolin's user page states that they are semi-retired, "This user is no longer very active on Wikipedia." In this case, the new article was prodded just two minutes after it was created and then this nomination was made just a few minutes later.  Will this encourage them to continue contributing or will it cause them to fully retire? Andrew D. (talk) 22:23, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Mind your long reach there, you might knock something over. Pure RED  &#124; talk to me  &#124; 00:33, 1 September 2017 (UTC)


 * keep This article is easily expandable as a sociological issue. Google scholar gives 50,000 search returns on this topic. This high number doesn't surprise me at all given the large amount of social settings wherein creepiness is often attributable. One of the reasons this topic is also important is it touches upon some uncomfortable double standards in our society. For instance women are seldom and very rarely desribed as "creepy" It is almost entirely a male attribute. It is the duty of an encyclopedia, especially the largest encyclopedia in the world to touch upon a glaring phenomenon in society. All the more so because the term "creepy" is often used in a vague setting thus making the subject of the accusation feel the transgression is obscure. 79.67.72.116 (talk) 00:28, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It is not Wikipedia's function or "duty" to expose what should be exposed. As for Google Scholar, the provided search yields 2400 hits.  The hits with significant citation counts relate to online privacy and "leakiness."  One states how the psychological concept is so little explored.  Not much to support a supposedly notable topic. • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Strange, when I click the Google Scholar link above, or run the query directly, I get only 2,400 hits, not 50,000. Further, for the search term "bollocks", I get 7,380 hits; for "bodacious", I get 2,530; for "chortle", I get 4,970; for "sometimes", over 5 million; for "maybe", over 2 million. I submit that the number of documents in Google Scholar that happen to contain a given word isn't a measure of whether the word denotes an encyclopedic topic or a topic that is a frequent object of study, and isn't an indication of notability. Largoplazo (talk) 15:46, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * bollocks; bodacious; chortle; sometimes and maybe are all blue links not red links. Just about any word which is used a lot should lead to a page on Wikipedia because we're an encyclopedia and so cover just about everything. Andrew D. (talk) 07:50, 5 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and the article never moves fully beyond being a dictionary definition.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:22, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. Defined and discussed in reliably scholarly work . Given the popularity of the term and its general usage, a notable concept. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:54, 5 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep – Has received significant coverage in scholarly sources. See Google Scholar results for examples. North America1000 12:41, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - Encyclopedia articles should be about nouns, not adjectives. Dictionary definition and trivia junk drawer, with illustrations. Carrite (talk) 15:57, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * "Creepiness" is a noun. Largoplazo (talk) 16:01, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Changing earlier !vote to weak keep. Google Scholar does give the impression that the subject has been as a phenomenon by multiple studies. But the article needs work. At the moment, it's a definition, a mention of one study, and mentions of a couple of places where the word "creepy" has been used. It needs more coverage of the phenomenon, relating what the studies have to say about it. And it should exclude trivia about where people have remarked that something or other is creepy. The article should be about the subject that the word "creepiness" refers to, not about the word itself. Largoplazo (talk) 16:08, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a reasonable topic for an article. As several people have pointed out, there is even significant academic research on this subject. Articles should be deleted if they have no potential, not if they are inadequate in the few days after their creation. Wait a month or two and nominate again if there is no improvement. Zerotalk 01:32, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  J 947(c) (m) 04:52, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep perfectly reasonable subject, plentiful sources, and per Category:Emotions Category:Feeling why wouldn't this feeling be notable when dozens of others are? In ictu oculi (talk) 09:19, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. Clearly notable per the many sources identified above. I get the impression that there is a prejudice among many Wikipedia editors against articles about common concepts rather than about subjects identified by proper names. That has no basis in either Wikpedia policy or common sense about what belongs in an encyclopedia. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:13, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I've noticed this prejudice too and I've thought it might be due to the higher proportion of people on the autism spectrum among the regular editors. – Uanfala 07:55, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * This comment about prejudice has an air of a different kind of prejudice in it. I don't think you meant it that way, but that's the way it comes across. Pure RED  &#124;  talk to me   &#124; 14:52, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Ooops, you're right. That was just an impulsive thought: I am on the fuzzy edge of the spectrum and I've often felt the pull of the concrete and the neatly classifiable. And as for there being a higher proportion of people with autism here, there's an essay about it: WP:AUTIST. – Uanfala 15:33, 12 September 2017 (UTC) I just realise that my first comment could be taken as referring to individual editors in the discussion. But it isn't. I find it impossible to tell whether someone is on the spectrum or not based on their editing. – Uanfala 15:41, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * No worries at all! It's definitely an interesting topic though. I think we get so set into our way of doing things in a sea of a million ways to do things, and we all refuse to budge. That's partly why I decided to withdraw the nomination; it definitely helps to be flexible. Pure RED  &#124;  talk to me   &#124; 15:43, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure about policy, but an alternative would be to merge with Uncanny, which seems to be pretty much the same thing. PopSci (talk) 18:28, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The idea that these are the same concept appears to me to be pretty uncanny, but not at all creepy. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 22:46, 11 September 2017 (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.