Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nitpicking (pastime)


 * 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   redirect to Nitpicking. Material that is suitable for merging elsewhere may be accessed from the page history. Jujutacular (talk) 14:40, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Nitpicking (pastime)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not a notable encyclopedic topic; at best this is a content fork from Phil Farrand. The associated definition of "nitpicking" as a behavior is legitimately a dictdef item and is covered by wiktionary and in the article Nitpicking. This topic's only claim to legitimacy and notability seems to be the work of Phil Farrand. Nitpicking is not a hobby or pastime and Wikipedia doesn't need this content fork that defines it as such. Orlady (talk) 17:03, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge - from the disambiguation page (Nitpicking (disambiguation)) and the "see also" links, this content is better put at Criticism. Anything of worth about Phil Farrand should be put into his article, too. Ansh666 17:51, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Somehow didn't see that all relevant content was in the appropriate pages - redirect to the criticism page then. Ansh666 19:58, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Or delete because of the disambig in the title if it really is found there is nothing to merge anywhere else. Ansh666 01:41, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 25 August 2013 (UTC)


 * keep I see no good rationale given here for any of the several options cited per "just get rid of it, I don't care where". The only one with any credible policy to support it would be dicdef (and thus transwiki to wiktionary), but that's not a terribly useful way to build an encyclopedia.
 * Phil Farrand did not coin a neologism here, he used the title because it was already a widespread term. It's implausible that he's the only nitpicker of note. Even in sf / fantasy, there are any number of "The Real Science of Harry Potter" books around, based on the same nitpicking approach.
 * Merge to nitpicking is a backward step of undisambiguation. Claiming "Nitpicking is not a hobby or pastime " and doing that here on Nittypickia is ridiculous. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:29, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: Nitpicking, in the sense used in this article, is a perfectly good word that long predates its use by Phil Farrand. I have no intention of suggesting otherwise. The fact that it is a valid definition is why Wiktionary has a definition of that sense of the word; additionally, although the article nitpicking is about the physical removal of nits, it discusses this other meaning of the word as an interesting derivation from the physical activity. In contrast, the article under discussion represents this sense of "nitpicking" as some sort of a pastime, hobby, or sport (a former title of the article was "Nitpicking (sport)"). I do not see support for the notion that this sense of nitpicking is notable (per Wikipedia criteria) as a pastime, hobby, sport, industry, or other activity. (And, of course, a valid dictionary definition is not a valid notable topic for Wikipedia.) --Orlady (talk) 15:15, 26 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - Not an encyclopedic topic. Fails GNG as well, as not the subject of multiple instances of substantial published coverage. Carrite (talk) 16:03, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Hypercriticism redirects to the proper place for this. Finding flaws in a movie or television show isn't nitpicking.  That's a totally different thing.  You see an error in a fictional work, you should always report it.  Totally different than picking apart in detail every little thing wrong with someone or their daily actions.   D r e a m Focus  16:09, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * So that's a merge? Ansh666 19:16, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Redirect. There isn't anything to merge.   D r e a m Focus  21:37, 26 August 2013 (UTC
 * Redirect partial merge to to main article on the topic: Nitpick. Explaining the act of nitpicking as an OCD "pastime" is a bit of a WP:NOR stretch.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 20:07, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete or Redirect - Like Dream Focus said, Hypercriticism already redirects to the correct place for this concept, and there really isn't anything worthwhile to merge. I'd personally recommend Deletion since I don't really see this as being a remotely plausible search term, but I would be OK with a redirect if that's what most people would prefer.  76.91.27.159 (talk) 17:45, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * A redirect would, however, take care of the backlinks to this page. --Orlady (talk) 23:41, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The majority of those are in the project namespace or various talk namespaces (I can only find 4 article-space links, 6 if you include redirects). Is it worth it? Ansh666 01:41, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Redirects are extraordinarily cheap. --Orlady (talk) 15:10, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Doesn't that apply to WP:RFD only? Ansh666 19:06, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Redirects are cheap, regardless of how they are created or where they are discussed. --Orlady (talk) 03:28, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You're right. Sorry. Ansh666 03:49, 5 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Selective merge (sourced portions of lead) to nitpicking, per WP:CFORK. And it's not literally a pastime anyway. -- Trevj (talk) 11:15, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete this article as it belongs on as it is a definition. Technical 13 (talk) 00:55, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete as Dicdef and non-encyclopedic.  GregJackP   Boomer!   13:36, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Selective Merge to nitpicking. This is not an actual pasttime or concept wholly separate or that is anything more than a dicdef. -Drdisque (talk) 04:12, 6 September 2013 (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.