Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Navel gazing

Navel gazing was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE

It somehow seems appropriate that I'm listing this on VfD... doesn't seem notable. This was listed as a speedy deletion, but could have potential. - Ta bu shi da yu 09:25, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-encyclopedic as currently designed. Non-notable.  Essay stub.  Snippet of personal research.  POV that has no feasible remedy. ---Rednblu | Talk 11:05, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete: Why, oh why, do people without reference books decide that, although they don't know the history of a word, they will nevertheless guess and, what's more, put their guesses into a reference work? Delete for being along the lines of "me and my buddies heard that it used to mean."  Geogre 12:29, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * WHATEVER* I just love it that you can make assumptions like that based on a few lines of text ... I guess I'll use my english degree to talk to people worth my time. The thing about the english language is that it is an evolving language, so "me and my buddies" is actually how most words come into common vernacular. Love also that I read all the guidelines, noting especially the pages on "please be bold and post" and "be nice to newbies" and get a rude response like this, and also that you have nothing but criticism for an entry that was put at the end of an empty link. If you don't like it, put something better there. Otherwise, stuff your elitist little nerd-hole.
 * Anon has a point. Can we please not bite the newbies? - Ta bu shi da yu 14:30, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Yes, and I need a definition for nerd-hole, could original article writer write that one up? Terrapin 16:09, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the bite, but "navel gazing" is easy enough to investigate. If the anon does have an English degree, then he or she should also know that words come into the language and leave traces in print and other records.  Partridge's is out there to give a record of older slang.  One ought to reverence the language enough to not assert facts that are not facts.  Had the article said, "Is a term that means overly self-involved speculation and/or narcissism," I'd have just said it was a dictdef article.  However, the anon went beyond that to offer speculation as fact.  My point is that boldness in creating an article is wonderful, but "bold" is not "reckless."  I may be too scholarly, but it's not elitism: it's a regard for usefulness and for the idea that someone might be wanting to learn from what we write here.  Geogre 15:49, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Delete. If it were shorter, it'd be a dictdef. If it were longer, it'd be original research. As it is, it appears to be somewhere between speculation and a hoax: in 55 years of doing various things, I'd never heard that navel gazing had anything to do with masturbation; it might be true for some, but it can't be that common. Asfer teeth, the sharpest ones around seem to belong to our Anonymous friend. Geogre's comments, though sharp, are pertinent and hardly rude: get used to being criticised, we all do. &#8212; Bill 15:59, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * I disagree. "Get used to it" is not a good response--although the article is deletion-worthy, there's no reason not to make people feel welcome. Delete, but being nice makes everyone's life easier. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 04:36, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)


 * Delete. It's incorrect information. I'd say "Redirect to omphalopsychic or omphaloskepsis" if we had either article. Navel-gazing is a technique for meditating or inducing a trance. AFAIK it is not a euphemism for masturbation, although I suppose that through the good work of "me and my buddies" it may become one, just as "masterbation" may eventually become the correct spelling of the word masturbation, and "english language" may eventually become the correct capitalization of "English language." In the continuing evolution of the English language, Wikipedia should not try to serve as an agent of change. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 16:31, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. No useful content, if the speculation were to be removed it would be a dicdef and I can't see any prospects for growth from there. I'll gladly change my vote if proved wrong on this, I have been wrong before. Andrewa 17:13, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete unless someone can come up with something (a) accurate and (b) interesting about it. Perhaps interesting stuff can be found about "omphaloskepsis"; has it always been used ironically? Is Huxley's 1925 usage of it the earliest in English? What is the difference between figurative "wanking" and figurative "omphaloskepsis"? But the current article is useless, for either a dictionary or an encyclopedia. --jpgordon{gab} 18:01, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. (I have a professor who uses this term to mean something entirely different. But that doesn't make it significant, or really any more than common sense.) [[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 18:25, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Note that their English degree didn't help them in their spelling.  RickK 23:48, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.