Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Humpty Dumptyism


 * 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. A source is not just a usage of a term; it must support the assertions made in the article. The assertion that Humpty Dumptyism is what this article says it is was not supported by any of the sources pointed out by those arguing for "keep." This AfD close should not preclude a future, accurately and adequately sourced article. Chick Bowen 02:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Humpty Dumptyism

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Nonnotable ad-hoc-ism. Among the very few few google hits, there are numerous usages addressing various facets of this roundish things. `'юзырь:mikka 04:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete as neoglism. Unlikely article will ever become more than just a definition. Speaking of which, this definition is already over in Wiktionary. --Bren talk 07:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Impossible to verify beyond the citation from Lewis Carroll. Fails WP:NEO. Yechiel Man  07:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Hengwah (Delete). This "word" had the same definition. Its article got deleted a day or two ago and so should this one, per Bren. Clarityfiend 07:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Fails criteria WP:VERIFY.--Edtropolis 13:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. The only source mentions "Humpty-Dumptyism" once, I believe. ~Crowstar~ 14:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * One of the tasks at AFD is for editors to look for sources themselves, as the Guide to deletion explains, to add layers of Swiss cheese into the process. It is clear that Crowstar has made no effort whatsoever to look for sources, and is thus not helping the process at all.  I suspect from their rationales that neither Edtropolis nor YechielMan have done so, either.  And Clarityfiend is simply confusing a word that some Wikipedia editors made up out of whole cloth with a documented and well-known concept in the field of linguistics and semiotics.  Mikkalai is the only person who has apparently looked for sources up to this point.  Xe just looked in the wrong place (not having read the original author's note at the top of the article's talk page, perhaps). Looking for sources, I find ample verification for this content in a larger number of places, including pages 93–94 of ISBN 0415100895 (which discuss this under the name "Humpty Dumpty semiology") and page 376 of Goldberg ) who discusses this as the "Humpty Dumpty principle".  The publication date of that book puts paid to the idea that this is a neologism.  And the claim that it is non-notable is ludicrous.  I can even find this principle discussed in books about making concrete . It's not original research; it's verifiable; and it's notable.  Keep. Uncle G 17:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Although there are now sources, Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and I really doubt this stub definition has the potential to become an encyclopedia article. The definition was transwikied to Wiktionary in Feb, so I still stand behind my delete vote. --Bren talk 01:53, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Your doubt is based upon, as I said, not looking for sources yourself. You are also conflating "short article" and "dictionary article" in the very way that the policy that you link to says to be wrong. Uncle G 09:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Refer to my original vote, where I searched for sources and located the term in Wiktionary. As for the article in it's current state (and has been since creation in November 2005), the stub consists of a one-sentence definition of the term, followed by where it was derived from. The quoted passage from Through the Looking-Glass does not actually state "Humpty Dumptyism" nor "Humpty Dumpty Principle" so while I can see where the term would originate from, it's not actually declared in the passage. Finally, the link to wsrpa.net is down and I am unable to find a cached copy of what the external link is referencing, and the only cited source is a link to an online copy of Through the Looking-Glass; hardly a secondary source, and as mentioned above does not declare the term. I understand the dictionary policy I quoted, which states "stubs that cannot possibly be expanded beyond perpetual stub status should be either renamed, merged, or refactored into articles with wider scope, that can be expanded beyond perpetual stub status, or deleted if it cannot be renamed, merged, or refactored." This topic is already covered in Humpty Dumpty, an article which has far more inlinks and substantially more than 19 edits in over a year and a half. --Bren talk 11:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You do not understand the policy if you don't understand that renaming, merging, and refactoring have nothing to do with AFD. And as I said above, you are not looking for sources yourself, so you actually have no idea whether the article can be expanded from stub status in the first place.  Your only effort in this regard, apparent from what you have written here, is to look at what sources are cited in the article.  That's not enough to support an argument that a stub cannot possibly be expanded, especially in the face of an argument that it can that is accompanied by evidence that sources abound.  Uncle G 11:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Of course these relate to AfD ...that can be expanded beyond perpetual stub status, or deleted if it cannot be renamed, merged, or refactored. This has not been expanded beyond stub status in a year and a half with only 19 edits in that time. It seems at this time it is unlikely the term will warrant an encyclopedia article in the future. The term already exists in Wiktionary and in a wider scope on Humpty Dumpty, so this article cannot be renamed, merged, or refactored. Hence my delete vote. --Bren talk 13:28, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment. No, I did not confuse the two articles. I just wanted to say "Hengwah". I stated that this article should be deleted per Bren. It is in Wiktionary and that's where it belongs. So, hengwah. Clarityfiend 06:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * So your rationale was not based upon any research, any study of what sources exist, or the application of our Deletion policy and our Wikipedia is not a dictionary policy (which say that we do not delete stubs with potential for expansion), but was simply based upon the desire to use a silly protologism that you had read earlier in an AFD discussion? Uncle G 09:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per the sourcing found by Uncle G].-- danntm T C 23:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - Wikipedia is not a dictionary, this neologism does not meet WP:RS, much less WP:N. -- Kesh 02:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You would have done better to actually read this discussion before contributing to it. An argument that this is a neologism that cannot be sourced looks particularly daft given that we have a source that was published in 1938.  Uncle G 09:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Why have you not added those sources to the article if they are relevant, then? Further, you haven't even explained how they are used in those books, to tell us they're not the same as the court article in usage. -- Kesh 20:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You can add them to the article yourself. As I said  below, please familiarize yourself with our Editing policy.  This is a collaboratively written project.  Uncle G 11:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment When citing sources, say where you got it - WP:CITE. Some of the other editors and I do not have access to the hard-copy books being cited for verification. --Bren talk 13:35, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep since it is sourced. It is a real concept, as can be seen if one doesn't limit one's self to one's own memory. DGG 04:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The sourcing consists of a single link that only uses the term, and in an off-hand manner regarding a trial proceeding. It does not discuss the history/usage/etc. of the term itself. Juding by this article alone, the term is something made up one day. This does not satisfy WP:RS in the least. -- Kesh 05:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You are supposed to be judging by what sources exist, not simply by what is currently cited in the article. Please read our Deletion policy and Editing policy. Uncle G 09:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Please do not lecture me on AfD related policies. I'm quite familiar with them, and this article does not satisfy our policies. -- Kesh 20:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You are apparently not familiar with them, your protestations notwithstanding, because you are basing your argument, repeatedly, upon what sources are cited in the article, rather than upon what sources actually exist, and you are erronously claiming that a verifiable article does not satisfy our policies. We don't delete articles for having no citations.  We delete them for being unverifiable.  We don't delete stubs because they haven't been expanded yet.  Featured article status from the get-go is not a requirement.  Once again: Please read our Deletion policy and Editing policy.  You aren't applying them and apparently are not familiar with them.  Uncle G 11:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge with Humpty Dumpty or keep. This is an important cultural allusion of the character, adequately if not optimally referenced.  - Smerdis of Tlön 22:36, 24 June 2007 (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.