Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mentalist (derogatory slang)


 * 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. While purely numerically merging seems to be the option, there is simply no sourced material to merge, and there certainly is no consensus to keep the article. If sourcing can be found, whether and where else to write it is an editorial decision. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Mentalist (derogatory slang)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and this is just one definition of the word "mentalist", and it's already been transwikied to Wiktionary(it was deleted via Prod, and recreated, so the history doesn't show it). This obviously shouldn't be rewritten into an article on insanity or mental illness as we already have articles on both of those. Xyzzyplugh 13:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 *  keep Merge Mentioned in 2 comedy shows, not yet cited, if cited not unreasonable --Nate 13:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The Wikipedia is not a dictionary policy does not make an exception for words which have been mentioned in two comedy shows. In fact, most english words have been mentioned in multiple comedy shows and movies and so on, that doesn't mean we have dicdef articles on them. --Xyzzyplugh 14:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * From the comment's on the page the term was specific part of the shows not just mentioned, sorry if I did not make that clear --Nate 15:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as dicdef per nom. Otto4711 13:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 *  Keep See Comment Below I recreated the article, after finding it arbitrarily deleted. The article has a long history.  It was originally part of Mentalist but was separated and disambiguated. The article describes a notable and widespread use of a descriptive term in British culture and, as such, should be included in any definition of the term "mentalist".  However, Wikipedia's categorical nature excludes that explanation from being included in the main "mentalist" entry. Removing it from Wikipedia wholesale effectively censors that meaning. Mr Twain 11:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It has already been copied to Wiktionary, at wikt:Transwiki:Mentalist (derogatory slang). The fact that a word is notable (whatever it means for a word to be notable) and widespread doesn't mean we should have an article giving the definition of it.  Wikipedia is not a dictionary.  Wiktionary is the place for definitions of words, Wikipedia is not.--Xyzzyplugh 12:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You seem to be missing the point that it was a theme, in two comedy shows which is the bulk of the article, not the definition. --Nate 13:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It is not just a word definition, it is a concept in popular culture, whose meaning is being censored by the arbitrary removal of article. And, it is the meaning that is notable - the signification, not the sign. You keep quoting the Wikipedia is not a dictionary rule, I would remind you that if the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, you should ignore them. Mr Twain 18:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is a concept in popular culture, and one we already have an article about: Insanity. Here is a list of some other words or phrases which mean the same thing: around the bend, balmy, bananas, bats in the belfry, batty, berserk, crackbrained, cracked, crazed, crazy, cuckoo, daffy, daft, demented, deranged, loco, looney, mad, maniacal (also maniac), mental, moonstruck, nuts, nutty, off one's rocker, screwy, unbalanced, unsound, wacky. Note that we don't have articles on any of these(some are disambig pages or articles on other uses of the term, like banana).  Wiktionary is the place to go for dictionary definitions, it has almost all of the ones I listed. --Xyzzyplugh 22:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Using that argument, then all adjectival synonyms should be removed from Wikipedia. Thing is, "Mentalist" is a noun, not an adjective - a noun with several distinct meanings, all of which have their own articles or explanation on Wikipedia.  It makes no sense to remove one of those meanings in such an arbitrary way.  I suppose there's a valid argument to be made that the material should be moved to the disambig, but there's no real argument that it should be removed wholesale.  Especially when we have great articles like Lunatic as a precedent...  Mr Twain 10:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Slight merge to insane, delete the (transwikied) rest. Sandstein 17:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Most of what is there now hasn't been transwikied & wouldn't be appropriate for it as it relates to the use of the term. --Nate 08:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * &emsp; Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached  &emsp; Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 18:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete I would tend towards keep if this was actually any kind of a "theme" in British comedy or even common slang usage - put bluntly, it isn't at all. Alan Partridge yells "You're a mentalist!" once to his stalker, and even if The Office paid some kind of homage to the single use of the term in Partridge (which is not at all verified by the Gervais quote), that doesn't make it a theme, a meme, slang or anything other than a word that was mentioned twice, and never even really defined, on two separate BBC comedy shows. What next, an article on Monkey Tennis (oh my God, there is one!)? --Canley 22:06, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the fact that there is an article on Monkey Tennis and further articles titled Loony and Nutter establish a precedent that this AFD seeks to ignore. And, Canley, I'd argue that the slang usage is a meme. Such a strong meme that this meaning has swamped the original meaning of the word. It's becoming clear that the thirst for deletion is too strong for the argument to be heard in this case though.Mr Twain 08:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Loony is a redirect. Nutter is a disambiguation page(which needs cleanup). --Xyzzyplugh 12:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Still a dicdef.  Mr. Twain, please note that lawyering isn't going to change this, and that this isn't what the spirit of WP:IAR is intended for. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 22:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge and Redirect per Nate1481's comments below. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 19:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * With respect, if there is any lawyering in this discussion, it did not come from me. Mr Twain 08:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - would an abbreviation & merging into Mentalist be acceptable? As it stands if the article is deleted then a common use of the word would not be mentioned, and confusion could occur. A sub heading with a link to wikitionary, and a brief statement that it was used in a two comedy shows & the ref might be a way forward. -- Nate1481
 * Yeah, I think that'd work. -- Dennis The Tiger  (Rawr and stuff) 16:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It might better be placed in Mentalist_(disambiguation) as previously suggested. Mr Twain 16:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - If this could be expanded to be more than a dictionary definition, I'd be all for keeping. As it is currently, though, that's all it is.  It would be appropriate to include a line about it on the mentalist disambiguation page, which has already been done.Chunky Rice 20:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge to mentalist. Context is too specific; the quote doesn't refer to the term and the Oxford claim is unsourced. –Pomte 04:53, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Reluctant Merge - It appears the best way to preserve this article is to agree with the merger to Mentalist - despite the fact that the article was originally part of that article, and was separated by a different set of Wikipedians interpreting the same rules in a different way... But who am I to challenge the logic of (current) consensus? Mr Twain 12:02, 8 May 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.