Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Facepalm (2nd 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   keep. delete. ...

............................................ ________ .................................... ,.-‘”...................``~., ............................. ,.-”...................................“-., ......................... ,/...............................................”:, ..................... ,?......................................................\, ................... /...........................................................,} ................. /......................................................,:`^`..} ............... /...................................................,:”........./ .............. ?.....__.........................................:`.........../ ............. /__.(.....“~-,_..............................,:`........../ ........... /(_....”~,_........“~,_....................,:`........_/ .......... {.._$;_......”=,_.......“-,_.......,.-~-,},.~”;/....} ........... ((.....*~_.......”=-._......“;,,./`..../”............../ ... ,,,___.\`~,......“~.,....................`.....}............../ ............ (....`=-,,.......`........................(......;_,,-” ............ /.`~,......`-...............................\....../\ ............. \`~.*-,.....................................|,./.....\,__ ,,_.......... }.>-._\...................................|..............`=~-, ..... `=~-,_\_......`\,.................................\ ................... `=~-,,.\,...............................\ ................................ `:,,...........................`\..............__ ..................................... `=-,...................,%`>--==`` ........................................ _\..........._,-%.......`\ ................................... ,<`.._|_,-&``................`\ (That's a keep. (stolen from User:East718)) v/r - TP 01:10, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Facepalm
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

No reliable sources are in this article, nor ever have been, so far as I can tell. Some users claim that it's listed in the OED - I have not verified this, but listing in a dictionary is not sufficient grounds for inclusion in an encyclopedia. ~TPW 16:28, 11 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep The word facepalm is not actually listed in the OED. To find sources for this gesture, it seems that other phrases are needed.  For example, here's a detailed paper on "hand over face" gestures which states that hand-over-face gestures are an important channel of nonverbal communication.  The topic just seems to require ordinary editing per our editing policy, rather than deletion.  Warden (talk) 17:40, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course the gesture has been around since time immemorial, that's not the point, the point is the word itself. It's a neologism not significant enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. --78.150.164.120 (talk) 17:47, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * So find a better title and move/ redirect the article there. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:55, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Although the article needs to be improved, including the provision of better references, deletion is not cleanup. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:55, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Deletion is justified if there are no references to be found to prove the article's notability. If someone wants to recreate the article having found suitable references there would be nothing to stop them from doing so. --78.150.164.120 (talk) 22:37, 11 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. It is in the Oxford Dictionaries as published here.  ⋙–Berean–Hunter—►  21:35, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * But as has been stated that is not sufficient grounds for keeping the article. --78.150.164.120 (talk) 22:37, 11 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions.  — frankie (talk) 17:10, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions.  — frankie (talk) 17:10, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions.  — frankie (talk) 17:10, 12 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment See also the first discussion at Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 December 12. Cnilep (talk) 06:31, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That is not the 'first discussion', this is: Articles_for_deletion/Facepalm. We're discussing an article, not a redirect, so your linked discussion isn't relevant to this one. --78.150.157.34 (talk) 09:22, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * By "the first discussion" I simply meant the one at the top of that page. Cnilep (talk) 11:37, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Cnilep, thank you. I reviewed the discussion, and the two sources which were added to the article that was created as a result . . . and discovered that neither one is worth a darn anymore.  The first can't be found, and the second, a search link in Google Books, turns up nothing for the term.  My nomination is based on my quite reasonable belief that no reliable sources can be found, and I will be most pleased to weigh in as a keep should that belief be disproven.  Deletion is not cleanup . . . it is reserved for articles which don't have reliable sources and aren't likely to get them, such as this one.--~TPW 15:59, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, a search at Google books does show its use in published sources. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—►</b>  14:08, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Berean, that gave me pause to reconsider. I'm still stuck, though . . . looking at the difference between an encyclopedia and dictionary, I can't find that any of those book results lend themselves towards this being anything more than a definition.  They appear to simply be usages of the word, not anything that comes close to WP:N.  Seriously, am I missing something?--~TPW 22:44, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * None of those published works are of note. Terrible novels or internet pop culture. --78.144.168.82 (talk) 15:06, 16 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment: It would probably be much more productive for the anonymous editor(s) to create an account and weigh in with a delete, instead of simply badgering each person who does so.  No anonymous commenter has added anything to the discussion which I didn't include in the nomination, so it's safe to assume that each of the participating editors have already considered those points.  I don't expect that repeating them incessantly is likely to alter their views.--~TPW 12:34, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It is most certainly not safe to assume that, as I am convinced they would not be saying what they are if they had. And a single vote from me obviously isn't going to change matters; we do things by consensus here and the current consensus appears to be Keep. Why you're suggesting stifling discussion, in a discussion, would be 'much more productive' eludes me. --78.150.166.47 (talk) 16:41, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I wasn't suggesting stifling discussion, I was suggesting stifling redundancy. Since we do, indeed, base decisions solely upon the weight, not number, of the arguments, there's no real point in bringing the same points up again and again.  I happen to agree with your points, but I also take it on faith that other editors have read them, understand them, and see things differently.  I do find your belief that your own arguments are so scintillating that no one could possibly disagree if they were to but read them to be charming, however.--~TPW 01:23, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOS! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.79.110.98 (talk) 22:08, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete An entry in the OED does not merit inclusion on Wikipedia, if it's in the OED it belongs in Wiktionary. The article was deleted through AfD last time for lack of sources, this time it has one, nothing else has changed it's still the same as it was in 2007. —  James ( Talk •  Contribs ) • 11:39am • 01:39, 16 September 2011 (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.