Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Graving


 * 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. &mdash; Nearly Headless Nick  08:50, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Graving

 * — (View AfD)

Nom - neologism; not in dictionaries; no sources. Originally prod'd, but an editor with just one edit (sock puppet?) removed the prod and added more content. Rklawton 02:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Graving as a word may be similar to slang, but it does describe what many people do as a hobby. Yes it is related to genealogy. I am not sure why this would be considered for deletion, while an advertising page for a porn actress (not even a good one) is allow to stay. Look her up on Wikipedia, she goes by the name 'Nikki Benz' link: . --Scott Buschlen 06:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirect to dry dock. MER-C 03:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Question what does dry dock have to do with graving? Rklawton 05:27, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * This. :) And, Redirect per MER-C. Tevildo 04:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Not Dry dock - I disagree with the proposed redirect. The article is on graving, and MW has three definitions for "graving" - none of which relate to a dry dock (or the subject of the article).  Rklawton 05:26, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Split Infinity (talk) 04:00, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * No redirect. Either keep or delete. --- RockMFR 07:32, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom - neologism. No redirect.   SkierRMH, 08:14, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Not delete - I'm the original submitter of the article, which describes an activity that is valuable for preservation and access of genealogical information. "Graving" is a term used by thousands of "gravers" - people who gather information from cemeteries and make it publicly available online. Just because a term is not in the dictionary doesn't warrant it unworthy as a page in a wiki encyclopedia. Also, the editor with just one edit, mentioned above, is not a sock puppet. {Bubbha 10:34, 17 December 2006 (UTC)}
 * Delete neologism. To be fair, I am prejudiced against this kind of word, and would also burn on sight all mentions of terms like "scrapbooking". Guy (Help!) 11:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep or Merge into Genealogy, the information included is useful and encyclopaedic even if the verb itself is not. Lethaniol 12:27, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as it stands on 17 December 2006. However, I would hope that the term may be verified in secondary and reliable sources in order to justify a vote for Keep. Some of the information could certainly be transferred to Monumental inscription or the like. Verica Atrebatum 16:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Question: If the prime objection is the name of the article, how about keeping it but changing the article name to, say, "Cemetery research"? {Bubbha 16:32, 17 December 2006 (UTC)}
 * Reply - original research. Rklawton 16:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Reply - A description of a real practice carried out by thousands of people is not "original research". {Bubbha 02:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)}
 * Delete WP:NEO. Eusebeus 16:51, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Do NOT Delete What, are Wikipedia users now becoming the English Académie Française, deciding which words may or may not enter the language? DocWilson 00:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)Doc Wilson
 * Comment - quite the opposite. We don't do original research here.  Therefore, we let the authorities (dictionary editors, in this case) decide what is accepted before we write an article.  For example, thousands of skydivers know exactly what a "whuffo" is.  You'll find it on Google searches, and it even found its way into a movie (Cutaway), but until Websters or the OED, or some other authority decides it is part of the English language, I don't get to write an article about it.  That's how it works here, and I don't mind playing by the rules.  Rklawton 00:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Rebuttal: Your comment conflicts with your other comment about the acceptability of the word "truthiness", which is in no English dictionary at this point. Other articles like "Cryptex" or "Skitching" or "River Trekking" should then be deleted by your standards, but are given a pass. The purpose of Wikipedia is to provide information about topics (including unusual hobbies, new ones of which are appearing all the time) to the general public, and this necessitates the acceptance of new terms to a reasonable extent. Zero-tolerance always causes more problems than it purports to solve. {Bubbha 02:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)}
 * Reply - I see no contradiction regarding expert confirmation. The word "truthiness" has been select as the 2005 word of the year by the American Dialect Society.  Here at Wikipedia, the fact that other unworthy articles exist is never a valid reason for keeping yet one more.  I would prefer to see the Cryptex article merged with the article about the book.  However, I suspect the book article is overly long, and the editors chose to split sections out into separate own articles.  If this is the case, then Cryptex would be worthy because it is central to the plot of a notable movie.  The skitching article has no sources and should be either fixed or deleted for the reasons you specified.  Unlike "graving", River trekking isn't a word, it's a phrase, and it describes an outdoor activity that is well documented.  Please read WP:NOT for a more official response to what you think Wikipedia should include (but won't).  Rklawton 03:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Reply First, Rklawton, I do value your input and I have learned a lot. But I had always thought that the proscription on neologism was to prevent someone from, say, inventing something out of whole cloth and posting an article about it; say, inventing the practice of walking backwards naked with a Sgt. Pepper LP album cover on one's head and coining the word "Whoojness" to describe it. On the contrary, "graving" is something that thousands of people do as a hobby, and is termed such by them. I have no objections to changing the title to something acceptable. You objected to my previous suggestion to do just that by citing another proscription -- original research -- but the simple act of describing a hobby that is actually practiced by a definite community is not "original research"; it's just statement of fact. Yes, I know I don't make the rules, but I would hope that the parameters of the proscription on neologism could be adjusted to be slightly more accommodating to the sharing of useful knowledge. Again, I would be happy to see this article being retained under a more acceptable name. {Bubbha 05:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)}
 * Keep and retitle if needed. Graving has been going on ever since there were graves of saints to venerate during pilgrimages. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 04:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - genealogy related hobby. - WeniWidiWiki 07:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak delete - I am unable to find many examples of this word being used in this context, even for what is admitedly an obscure activity. If anything can be provided to show notability, I will support a keep. - Justin (Authalic) 07:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge As with above, I recommend merging it. Somitho 12:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep As a new member of the Wikipedia community who was been lurking here since the site's inception I have to confess that I'm scratching my head as to why this is such a big deal. I have noted COUNTLESS articles on obscure practices on these pages.  In fact, I have had learned of the existance of several simply by reading these pages.  One such practice, Geocaching, was only brought to my attention this year, but it appears to have been around for awhile and like graving thousands of people are doing it. If you hold true to what you say on your admin page of wanting to help others then I suggest that you give the author and his associates a chance to flesh out the article to meet the site's approval.Cyberlucy1965 16:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)cyberlucy1965
 * Reply - good points. The AfD process takes 5 days.  That should be plenty of time to fix up the article.  But it doesn't change the fact that "graving" is a nelogism (see WP:NEO).  If there's something about this word that satisfies Wikipedia's neologism guidelines, then this is the place to discuss it.  As for Geocaching, unlike "graving" (which has multiple meanings), geocaching has over 4 million Google hits.  Rklawton 16:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Reply So how many of those four million google hits are mulitiple repeats of the same article. Sorry using that doesn't hold water. It's true graving has multiple meanings but it doesn't dismiss that like geocaching that it is hobby that is practiced by thousands of people and, as Mr. Norton kindly pointed out, it is a practice that has been going on for hundreds of years.  As others have pointed out here if the issue is the word being neologism then why not let the author and his associates title it something else perhaps a phrase not unlike "river trekking" which was inferred to be appropriate.  Cyberlucy1965 14:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)cyberlucy1965
 * Reply - renaming the article might be a good idea. It would avoid the neologism problem.  However, it would do nothing to solve the "no original research" problem.  At this point, the article reads like an unsourced "how to" guide. Rklawton 15:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Reply - How does one tell when the five days are up? Countedx58 19:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Answer - five days from the date of nomination. You can click the "History" tab of this project to see the first edit to this nomination.  In this case, five days are up on the 21st.  Individual results may vary.  Rklawton 04:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak delete per nom. dcandeto 19:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Note - it appears that the novice editors who have joined this discussion are being solicited to do so on the find-a-grave website. The first clue was here:  .  However, this link pretty much says it all:  .  I would like to encourage all the folks from find-a-grave to read the following:  WP:NEO, WP:NOR, and WP:MEAT.  I've also posted useful links on your talk pages over the last few days.  All of this is aimed at helping you become top quality contributors.  I suggest you focus your energies accordingly.  The experienced editors are trying their best to show you how things work here.  It's all for the best.  Rklawton 16:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Reply I've read the Wikidefinition of sockpuppet or meatpuppet, and I'm not here or taking an interest in this article because I'm a member of FAG. I'm here because I have been a supporter of Wikipedia over the years, and I care, like you, about the content. I have an interest in being a contributor here, and whether I opened my account today or two years ago doesn't matter. I agree that you have made some very good points, but I think the fact that this article was nominated for deletion instead of you seeking out the contributor and making these suggestions that you have been making has been the issue.  Cyberlucy1965 18:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Reply - I did leave the editors welcome messages complete with "how to" links. If I thought the article might be saved, I would have tagged, prod'd, or fixed it myself.  The point here is that I this article can't be saved.  A group of internet users have created their own slang to describe their activities, and now they want an article about it.  It just won't fly here.  Asking new editors to fix their article "or else" and then having to delete it anyway is far more cruel.  It's less misleading to simply point out the article's failing points, provide links to help its editors better understand how things work, and proceed to AfD.  I only nominated "graving" because I don't think we could salvage it.  Rklawton 18:26, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Reply - This experience has left a very bad taste in the mouths of those of us who are users of and contributors to both Find A Grave and Wikipedia. This is beginning to appear to us as the petty crusade of one person who has ALSO solicited others to support his point of view (a definition of the neologism "meat-puppetry," I believe). I recognize the signatures of everyone who has posted in support of the article, and they are all different people. No "sock-puppetry" going on -- and no "meat-puppetry" either. The original solicitation on Find A Grave was for ways to improve the article, not hammer at the Wikipedia administrators. And then to presume to register on Find A Grave for the sole purpose of instructing us poor benighted amateurs . . . well, the mind boggles. We are NOT just a small group of internet users who have created out own slang.  We are people with a common interest in a common pursuit which has its roots in changing attitudes towards death and burial in the 19th-century -- most of whom were doing it long before we had any access to the internet -- who are simply describing what we do in the most simple, elegant terms possible.DocWilson 18:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Reply - you won't find a single instance of me soliciting others to support deleting this article. As for sock/meat puppetry - see also WP:SPA.  I just pointed out that the influx of new accounts looked suspicious.  We see a lot of that sort of thing in AfD discussions.  Rklawton 19:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep with possible renaming or redirect to "Grave Hunting" Countedx58 18:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Note - I used Google to search the "Association for Gravestone Studies" website referenced in the "Graving" article (the only external website so referenced in the article) and found zero instances of the word "graving". This word is clearly the product of slang primarily used within the find-a-grave website forums.  Combined with the special purpose accounts created by find-a-grave users to defend this article, and the fact that these users admit within their discussion forums that they made up this word to describe their group's hobby, and the fact that they haven't been able to produce sources that establish this word as part of this (or any) language, and I think it's clear this article should be deleted.  As evidenced both here, in the article's talk page, and in their own discussion forums, I've done my best to guide these editors through the process and provide careful explanations and suggestions.  Their inability to resolve WP:NEO or WP:NOR does not reflect on their lack of interest, ability, or desire, but rather on the intractability of the problem.  The topic itself, and not simply the article, fails to meet Wikipedia's standards.  Rklawton 20:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Response I believe that the information provided in the article is worthy as useful information. But this seems to have become a battle between Wikipedia "inclusionists" and "deletionists", and I didn't come here for a battle, but just to share information. The article is now at Wikinfo.org for those interested. I hope the article can continue here in some form or another, but if the powers that be deem otherwise, let it be so. No, I'm not leaving Wikipedia - I will still contribute as always. All the best to everyone here, and no hard feelings. Bubbha 07:05, 22 December 2006 (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.