Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Howler (error)


 * 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:52, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Howler (error)

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

This isn't an article at all, but a loose collection of anecdotes on the general concept of error, with nothing to unite them beyond the use of the synonym "howler". The issues were thoroughly documented a decade ago on the talk page by User:Jnestorius. Some sourced bits and pieces may be mergeable into various articles in Category:Error, but this collection as such should not be in mainspace in the meantime; it can be userfied if desired. — swpb T&#8201;•&#8201;go beyond&#8201;•&#8201;bad idea 17:41, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — hueman1 ( talk  •  contributions ) 02:36, 31 August 2022 (UTC)


 * The claims in this proposal are supported with nothing more than flat statements of personal views, largely counterfactual. For example:
 * This isn't an article at all, but a loose collection of anecdotes on the general concept of error, with nothing to unite them beyond the use of the synonym "howler" Apart from the fact that the term is not used as a "synonym", which in any case does not in itself disqualify the material in the article, it is used as a term for a category. In context the term anecdotes as applied here, is nothing short of hand-waving denigration of relevant examples presented in appropriate contexts. Abuse is no substitute for criticism. Anyone claiming that there is nothing to unite them implicitly adopts the onus of demonstrating the lack, given that every example presented was shown in a particular context.
 * It also is wrong in claiming that there is nothing to unite them, and in the implied assertion that only one category of related items may be dealt with in any single article. The article in fact contains about nine distinct, but related, discussions of aspects of categories of howlers in the senses dealt with, each one thoroughly ref'd and with examples. Categorised illustrative items in context are quite distinct from a loose collection of anecdotes on the general concept... of anything. Granted that it takes a certain degree of comprehension to appreciate unifying themes, the lack of perception of the contexts only supports the attack if lack of the themes can be demonstrated; not necessarily in formal symbolic logic, but certainly in simple illustration.
 * The issues were thoroughly documented a decade ago on the talk page by User:JnestoriusThey were nothing of the kind. Typical complaints were "original research", in response to correct references. If every reference to supporting material is to be regarded as OR, that would not leave much in WP. Then, given a reference, jn could do no better than carp: ...Hunt and Ash's books; this may prove that they wrote about howlers, but does not establish their prominence. How prominent do they have to be to be cited as references accessible to online users? jn cited the absence of the word "howler" in one dictionary, when it appears in others; that sort of thing is what we are to expect in "thorough documentation"???
 * Hardly any of jn's points survived refutation, and the remainder would not justify deletion of this article. If arbitrary sniping were to justify deletion, then hardly any valuable articles in WP would survive at all.
 * Some of jn's "issues" were simple incomprehension: where the text refers to Richard Feynman's "perfectly reasonable deviations from the beaten track", jn pointed out that RF never used the word "howler", when the quote had nothing to do with the context; RF was referring to the exact opposite.
 * In short jn's "documentation" were generally without merit, especially in context; most of them were dismissed out of hand, and the rest did nothing to justify deletion.
 * There have been a number of additions to the article since its first publication, and I have not checked them all; if it should be shown that some of them were indeed anecdotes with no substance worth discussion or adding anything to the readers' conception, then the appropriate response is a bit of editing, not deletion of the whole article.
 * The idea that the article could be included in a general article on "error" is perhaps worthy of discussion, but it is not as simple as it sounds. "Howler" is not a simile for "error": not every error is a howler; "howler" is a category of error with its own history and subtexts, as illustrated by the examples jn tried to dismiss as OR.
 * More relevantly, and possibly more validly, though this article does mention some related terms such as "boner", there are articles under similar terms. Error is not one such, and I suggest that its categories are so far removed from the sense of this article that it would be a disservice to the user to unite them. Blunder and Boner are not much better, though the idea of unification of some of them could possibly be discussed. I suggest however, that the user would be better served by hatnotes or links referring to the independent articles. The user might not want to wade through pages of discussion of different senses.
 * Please describe what exactly "userfied" means and implies. If it means anything like "made more useful and helpful to the user", I can only applaud, but justify how and why. JonRichfield (talk) 15:15, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * "Userfied" means moved into the User namespace, where it is not part of the encyclopedia and not indexed by search engines, but accessible to editors. — swpb T&#8201;•&#8201;go beyond&#8201;•&#8201;bad idea 19:12, 1 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete. Once you strip away all the WP:OR, this is a pure WP:DICDEF.  There is no real topic here...it just boils down to "sometimes people make major errors...here are some times when people used this particular synonym to describe them", if even that.  For just one example of the egregious OR, take the section on ghost words.  Nowhere do any sources describe this in relation to any "howler" phenomenon.  The entire article is essentially a personal reflection essay, trying to tie together unrelated ideas where people just happened to use a specific word to refer to the general concept of "big mistake". 35.139.154.158 (talk) 17:35, 1 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete Userfication per my comments from 10 years ago. I didn't bother engaging further with JonRichfield way back then because I got the impression it would take much less effort to appeal to other editors than to try to change JR's mind. Other editors will be able to judge which of JR and me better refuted the other's points in 2012. As regards JR's points in 2022:
 * Anyone claiming that there is nothing to unite them implicitly adopts the onus of demonstrating the lack No, per WP:SYN it's up to you to find a WP:RS that does unite them. You can't offer original research and suggest that anyone with a degree of comprehension can appreciate unifying themes; you need to cite an external source that actually does the unifying.
 * Typical complaints were "original research", in response to correct references To take one of many such examples, the only reference given for It is very likely that such mock self-mockery gave rise to the term Irish bull (as opposed to just any bull), which is reflected in works such as Samuel Lover's novel Handy Andy. is publication info for Handy Andy, which is "correct" as far as it goes but does not offer any evidence for the primary assertion "It is very likely that such mock self-mockery gave rise to the term Irish bull". In statements of the form  there is no reference for.
 * How prominent do they have to be to be cited as references accessible to online users? There is no problem using Hunt or Ash as references for claims about howlers, but there is a problem using Hunt as a reference for claims about Hunt, or Ash as a reference for claims about Ash. ("accessible to online users" is irrelevant per WP:OFFLINE.)
 * jn cited the absence of the word "howler" in one dictionary It was your article text that says This article deals with the slang term in a sense that does not appear explicitly in the third edition of the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (reprinted as corrected by Charles Talbut Onions 1967). It does however appear in more recent dictionaries. All I did was point out that it is irrelevant to mention a dictionary which omits the term.
 * Hardly any of jn's points survived refutation. As you remark later, most of them were dismissed out of hand, which is not the same as refutation.
 * Some of jn's "issues" were simple incomprehension If a reader fails to understand something one has written, one possible response is "this reader is too stupid or lazy, so their incomprehension can be ignored". A more useful response is "I must try to express myself more clearly to avoid such incomprehension".
 * Please describe what exactly "userfied" means and implies. Userfication
 * jnestorius(talk) 20:43, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I've changed my recommendation to Userfication. I think there is potential for an article restricted to "schoolboy howlers"; to get it started, JonRichfield may be the most knowledgeable on the topic. jnestorius(talk) 23:59, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete for similar reasons to the soon-to-be-deleted Preparation (principle). Complete unsalvageable original-synthesis WP:FRANKENSTEIN of everything called a howler. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 18:04, 5 September 2022 (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.