Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sucker-trap


 * 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 Confidence trick. Consensus is that this topic does not merit a separate article; a point has been made (and accepted by another participant) that this could be a legitimate search term for Confidence trick and therefore this title is being redirected &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  02:50, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Sucker-trap

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Nominating this for an IP, reason given was: Prod contested by an editor who is removing prods from articles I've edited. Prod reason - Wikipedia is not a dictionary. 76.102.12.35 (talk) 00:06, 11 February 2010 (UTC) Tim Song (talk) 00:42, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I am a bit confused !
 * 1) Who is proposing what?
 * 2) What is an IP (mentioned above by user:Tim_Song)?
 * 3) Have everybody read my protest towards the first PROD ?Which I gave in Talk:Sucker-trap
 * 4) And if so, then where is the explanation of why my argument is deemed insufficient?--Seren-dipper (talk) 01:46, 11 February 2010 (UTC) I removed the "Keep" at the top of this enty. Because my real argumentation comes with its own "Keep!" further down this page (And User:Pablo_X made it clear that one of them is quite enough. I agree :-)--Seren-dipper (talk) 12:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * An IP in this context is a Wikipedia user who has not registered an account or is not logged in, such as User:76.102.12.35, who wrote the comment quoted by Tim Song above. They are known by the numerical IP address associated with their computer. Tim submitted the nomination instead of User:76.102.12.35 because a user must have an account and be logged in to complete an AfD nomination. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:31, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete The article seems to be confused about what it is about. If it is about the expression "sucker trap", then "WP is not a dictionary." If it is about sucker traps themselves then the material probably should be covered in another article with another title. Steve Dufour (talk) 01:48, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. It is not clear that this article describes a clearly defined concept that is not already covered under some other name. Looking at how the term is used in web and news sources, it appears to be used in various meanings which do not necessarily refer to what is described in this article. The only example given in this article is the Monty Hall problem, which the article claims may be a scam to waste the time of people who don't understand probability. That appears to be an exaggeration at best; the problem is really just an example of recreational mathematics and not a "sucker trap" at all. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:13, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. That an article is far from finished, should not be any reason for deleting it! (Should it?)To me it seems that the concept itself: "sucker-trap", is clearly defined in the article! If not, then please point out the weaknesses at the article talk page.Whether or not it might have yet another obscure name, is not an argument for deleting the article! (If eventually found then the two will be merged!).Hmm. This term, the way the article defines it, may not be in widespread use but this is not a neologism! It has ben published in The Space Merchants. The fact that the sucker-trap-term may have polysemes and or homonymes is not an argument against the use of the one defined and used here in the sucker-trap article!The sucker-trap article does not intend to claim that the Monty Hall problem is in itself a scam to waste the time of people who don't understand probability! (And the Monty Hall problem certainly may be used as a delightful piece of recreational mathematics!). But it is claimed that (and the sucker-trap article aspires to show how) these listed articles (or their topic) may easily be used as time consuming sucker-traps.Unfortunately it is quite a tall order to give a concise explanation, understandable for everyone (i.e. including those 'not in the know'), of how and why something might constitute a succer-trap. So please do not demand as a condition for not deleting the sucker-trap-article, that this list, or any of its item annotations, must be anywhere near completed! (For a long time to come!)Being prepared for what  the trolls might throw at you (i.e. the sucker-traps), is a good thing! This article will hopefully help the novice knowledege-treasure-hunters, adventurers and explorers get prepared! Both in 'The land of Wikipedia' and in other places.One of the main topics and, for now, maybe the major part of the sucker-trap-article may well be the annotated list of potential sucker-traps of the time-stealing type, but I do not think the scope of the article sould be limited to only this.P.S.If there were to occur wikipedia articles intended to be sucker-traps then it might be better to keep them out of this sucker-trap article, and leave it to the Wikipedia Trollslayer Taskforce to deal with that problem elsewhere.--Seren-dipper (talk) 21:07, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you point to a reliable source? It's the fact that there's no sourced there that's a concern (which is pretty important).  You seem to be making lots of statements that it should be kept because you know what it means (or as the article puts, those "in the know" know what it means) but that's not going to fly.  The fact that it could be useful isn't enough.  -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:29, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah! Yes! Thank you! I have now created a References section and repeated the source there.<BR> And I have clarified the part of the sucker-trap article using: "those 'in the know' ", by adding: "(i.e. the user(s) of the ploy and the people who sees through the ploy)".<BR>The "those 'in the know' " which appears in the article, is thus not refering to those who understand the concept of the expression: "sucker-trap"! Rather, it refers to those who are not fooled by some particular potential sucker-trap. (For instance the Monty Hall problem ).<BR>--Seren-dipper (talk) 02:44, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It's true that the sci-fi novel The Space Merchants is cited as a source. However there is no evidence given that this is the first published use of the expression. It is likely that the authors used an already common slang expression in their novel. It would probably be better to publish this essay on a blog or other website than in an encyclopedia (since encyclopedias are intended to be guides to already published and established information, not original thought). Steve Dufour (talk) 15:25, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Is it not the main point here, that I did not just coin the term myself?<BR>As long as it is documented that the term has been used in a published book, then lacking source should no longer be an argument for deleting the sucker-trap article!<BR>Of course it will be nice to eventually find the original occurence of the term, but it is not any sort of minimum requirement for not deleting this article, now! Is it?<BR>--Seren-dipper (talk) 18:24, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. I have removed the claim from the article that this usage of the term originated in 1953, as this search finds plenty of earlier uses (ignore the results about fishing). Phil Bridger (talk) 11:38, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Article improved. I have now written a completely new introduction in the article Sucker-trap.<BR>I have also added the following invisible comment, in the section Sucker-trap:"I know, I know! 'Wikipedia is not a dictionary'.<BR>But sometimes it is necessary to include a definition of a term to properly define the topic!<BR>I quote from NOTDIC: 'Wikipedia articles should begin with a good definition and description of one topic, however, they should provide other types of information about that topic as well. The full articles that the Wikipedia's stubs grow into are very different from dictionary articles.'" I hope that this will put an end to the PROD discussion.<BR>Does it? --Seren-dipper (talk) 23:04, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Just for clarity, this article has not been in a Proposed deletion (WP:PROD) situation for a few days now. User:Smappy did previously submit the article for PROD, but User:Seb az86556 removed the PROD tag, which they had a right to do (anyone can remove a PROD tag if they believe the article should not be deleted). This meant that if anyone wanted the article deleted, they would have to use the Articles for deletion procedure, which User:Tim Song put into effect (see above). The standard length of an AfD discussion is one week, so this discussion is expected to run until 18 February. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:29, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I do not quite get it yet. How can one say that the article is not proposed for deletion anymore, while the AfD discussion (Articles_for_deletion/Sucker-trap) is still going on? (Which as you said, it will do until February 18.). Besides to me it seems that the two delete votes, above, have not been retracted. Have they? --Seren-dipper (talk) 07:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm referring to the type of procedure being used. Proposed deletion (PROD) and Articles for deletion (AfD) are two different procedures for seeking deletion of an article. The procedure under which Sucker-trap is being considered for deletion is the AfD procedure, not PROD. The article is still at risk of deletion, depending on the results of this AfD discussion. It is true that the delete recommendations above have not been retracted. The administrator who closes this AfD discussion (probably on February 18) will take into account all the comments, determine whether there is a consensus consistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and either delete or keep the article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. This article seems to be being used by a single editor as a vehicle for his or her own Original Research. The introduction (which I've just removed, again) reads like the introduction to an essay, not the introduction to an encyclopedia article.86.169.74.185 (talk) 18:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Reply.I may have wrongfully presumed that most people would instantly recognise the theme of this article, from their own experience.<BR> Anyway: Subjectively, It feels as if my idea, for a potentially good wikipedia article, is beeing "shot down" even before I have had any chance to get it up in the air, flying on its own. Obviously it was not a good idea, of mine, to try to include an implicit plea, in the lead section to the article. The plea was directed towards those that I (subjectively) feel might be a bit to trigger happy deleters. In situations like this, it seems to me that the Wikipedia project as a whole, would greatly benefit from extensive leniencyand guidance instead of plain, brutal deletion and removal of unqualified content.<BR>When you say: "[It] reads like the introduction to an essay, not the introduction to an encyclopedia article.". Then how would you word the introduction? (If I eventually could come up with some hard references to prove that this theme is far from being any original research of mine (Which seems likely,  judging by the looks of the search-link given by User:Phil Bridger, above))). --Seren-dipper (talk) 06:57, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If you'd like advice on the wording of an introduction, read through WP:MOS and the various links it contains. If you wish to expand on your hopes, opinions, justifications and rationale for an article, please feel free to add your thoughts to the talk page, not the introduction of an article itself. You may also find it useful to read through other Wikipedia articles to get a feel for how article introductions are written, or to browse through other encyclopedias to get a feel for the style of writing use in an encyclopedia. Hope this helps, and hope it encourages you to continue editing here! 86.169.74.185 (talk) 08:11, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Redirect per Phil Bridger below. As written: delete per WP:NOTDIC. If the article is supposed to be about sucker-traps then it needs to explain how it's any different than a Confidence trick, which it tries but fails as "Confidence tricks exploit typical human qualities such as greed, dishonesty, vanity, honesty, compassion, credulity and naïveté", not just greed and dishonesty as mentioned in the current article VernoWhitney (talk) 21:12, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect to confidence trick as an unintentional fork. Encyclopedia articles are about topics, rather than words or phrases, and the concept is already covered in the confidence trick article, so I would urge the main author of this article to concentrate on editing that article rather than creating a duplicate. For the avoidance of doubt I would add that my linking of a Google Books search above was in no way intended to support the existence of this as a separate article, but simply to refute the assertion that this phrase originated in SF geekdom rather than in normal life. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:21, 17 February 2010 (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.