Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nincompoop


 * 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   soft-redirect to en.wikt. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 13:44, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Nincompoop

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Although this is a charming word, the Wikipedia isn't not a dictionary. This article is on the subject of Idiot (person) which the Wikipedia already has an article on. The article cannot reasonably be changed to give an encyclopedic entry, since the topic is a word, extending it would only result in the addition of things like the usage of the word in history and so forth and its etymology etc. The Wikipedia is not about the usage of words either, except in the most general sense (the Wikipedia covers topics like prefix, but tries to cover it for a whole class of words, and does so for all languages, whereas nincompoop is simply and only an English word that is already covered in Wiktionary).

The lexical companion already has the information on this word, and any more information should be placed there, in the more appropriate place. The Wikipedia is not a dictionary and is not about the meaning or usage of words. Given that the synonymous article exists, the article should be deleted. Given the scope of the article, this article cannot be saved.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 15:24, 17 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Transwiki anything which wiktionary wants, then delete. Sam Blacketer (talk) 15:34, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Soft redirect, which is exactly the state it was in yesterday before someone came by and vandalized the darn thing. Powers T 15:42, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete or redirect.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 22:17, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Soft redirect per LtPowers, and throw in protection to keep it that way. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:20, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect and salt as suggested. Bearian (talk) 21:37, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Soft redirect to Wiktionary per LtPowers. Thryduulf (talk) 21:42, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 21:42, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * comment Since this essentially only exists as an article because of vandalism, and this AFD is into WP:SNOW country, would anyone have any strong objections to me just re-doing the redirect and protecting the page? Normally an admin shouldn't do such a thing when they have participated in an AFD debate, but this seems unlikely to be controversial at this point. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:48, 20 October 2009 (UTC) now that someone has objected to the redirect this would be out of bounds Beeblebrox (talk) 05:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * delete There should not even be a soft redirect for this. Anyone who wants to know a word should know how to use Wiktionary or their favorite book or on line dictionary.  Keeping an article like this just promotes more abuse of Wikipedia.  There should not be a soft redirect for every word in the English language, and there is no reason that this word should be an exception.--Fartherred (talk) 05:17, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * However this debate turns out, I never intended to suggest that the contributors intended abuse. Some articles just do not belong in Wikipedia regardless of how helpful the intentions of the contributors were.--Fartherred (talk) 20:46, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * No one's suggesting a soft redirect for every word. But words that are valid Wikipedia titles (primarily, nouns) that do not have a reasonable on-wiki redirect target are certainly reasonable candidates for soft redirects.  (That is, someone might genuinely be looking for information on nincompoops in general; the reason we don't have an article on them is that there's really nothing concrete to say.  Rather than tell the reader "we don't know what you're talking about," we say "we don't have anything encyclopedic to say about nincompoops, but you can check out wiktionary for information on where the word came from."  Powers T 14:01, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * If people seeking a "Nincompoop" article should be directed anywhere, they should be directed to the article Idiot (person). It they are not interested in the concept but interested in the word, any book or online dictionary will do.  Wikipedia does not need to apologize for not having an article on nill or nip.  Both words are contained in Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, Eleventh Edition.  Those seeking "Nip" in Wikipedia are redirected to two articles using the word and abbreviations for notable Encyclopedia articles.  Neither will Wikipedia need to apologize for not having "Nincompoop."--Fartherred (talk) 20:46, 22 October 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.