Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Intellectual whimsy


 * 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. Consensus seems to be that the article is original research, and thus unsuitable for inclusion. Wiktionary is perhaps a better place to cover the term. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 15:46, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Intellectual whimsy

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Not WP:Notable. Most of the sources cited do not even use the expression. Intellectual whimsy is real but there is no reason to call it that rather than "quaint cleverness", "old-fashioned mind-games", or whatever you like. Until there is a generally accepted name an article on it is WP:Original research Northwestgnome (talk) 04:12, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - the article could do a better job defining its subject and focusing on encyclopedia relevant aspects of the topic, but that doesn't mean it isn't worthy of inclusion. The idea expressed here is a common and notable one and a find the argument that an idea has to have one unique term to be bizarre.  Many subjects are known by more than one term and it certainly isn't original research to pick one of them (normally the most common) for an article title and redirect the rest. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:13, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - I found the term in a dictionary; however, it was only being used as a definition for "" (and not one of the first ones, either):
 * The earliest usage I found was
 * And after all of this, plus some other research, it came down to: either it's a phrase with a single definition, in which case it goes to wiktionary, or it's a phrase that can be any of a number of things, in which case it's not encyclopedic. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 07:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Phrases of this sort are not the exclusive property of Wiktionary as they are commonly used as article titles here. For example, clicking random article a few times and skipping over the villages and asteroids, we have Barnsley Town Hall, Music of Bermuda, Negative resistance. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:17, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I look at the phrases you mention, and it's obvious to me what they describe. I'm not talking about getting rid of all phrases (obviously!); just one that doesn't actually have a fixed meaning—that is, there's nothing to actually write an article about. To use more examples from the definition above, WP doesn't have articles on elaborated metaphor, fanciful analogy, or stylistic artifice, either (and shouldn't). Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 22:43, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It does not seem obvious that the Music of Bermuda should include Scottish bagpipe music, as the article tells us. Is the Music of Bermuda any music which is played there or what?  May we not have any article for which the topic is not 100% understood and agreed, such as Dark energy or Money supply?


 * Comment I didn't take time to express my thoughts well in the nomination. The problem is not that there is disagreement on what expression to use, it's more like "intellectual whimsy" is really a kind of vauge expression that can be used in different ways. Kind of like "natural beauty", "honest debate", "serious consideration", and others. I don't think WP would have articles on any of them. Northwestgnome (talk) 19:25, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The nomination is unclear and I don't think we should entertain such vague propositions here. Topics should be given serious consideration and honest debate rather than being deleted in an offhand fashion. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:17, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry I did such a poor job of writing the nomination. I still think that the article is original research on a topic that is not clearly notable. A well educated person can indulge in whimsy and they often do, true. However that does not make "intellectual whimsy" a topic in itself. I also mentioned that the sources do not use the expression "intellectual whimsy" (unless I missed it), but serve more as examples of it. Northwestgnome (talk) 16:15, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:30, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, this is clearly Original Research and on a topic which is essentially a turn of phrase. It does not have an established meaning. 96.10.153.234 (talk) 04:13, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete - The 5,000+ ghits for this exact term do not support the description applied in this article, but rather the general combination of the two separate words (e.g. freedom of though) or of the other published definition (conceit). I will completely confess that I am no expert on Dada, so there may be something more to this, but as it stands today I am unable to help in the rescue because all research I do on this term points to different usage/meaning, and rewriting the article to that end would just make a it a non-notable dictionary definition.     7   talk &#124; &Delta; &#124;   04:58, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - It is a term that is indeed used in discourse. Smallman12q (talk) 21:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: pervasive WP:Synthesis, in that the article consists of little but 'examples' that the editors, as a matter of original research consider to be "intellectual whimsy". Appears to be no reliably-sourced material that explicitly discusses the topic. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 13:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Original research. Doctorfluffy (wanna get fluffed?) 07:20, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Move to wiktionary, seems to be majority OR -- Cabe  6403  (Talk•Sign) 20:14, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Um, since when is wiktionary a dumping ground for OR? --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not, that wasn't the reason for moving it to wiktionary. Should have been a period not a comma tbh -- Cabe  6403  (Talk•Sign) 07:07, 10 August 2009 (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.