Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nagging

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 keep and improve. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:31, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nagging

[edit]
Nagging (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested prod (I also tried redirecting to wiktionary but was reverted). This is a dictionary definition that's already adequately covered in wiktionary here. Basically, just juvenile humour verging on vandalism - see Talk page. Fails WP:NOT#DICTIONARY andy (talk) 17:02, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This is not a dictionary definition because it does not have a lexical focus. It is obviously possible to write more upon this topic as it is commonplace and so has been extensively studied. For some sources see:
Colonel Warden (talk) 00:23, 15 December 2010 (UTC) [reply]
  • Oh for goodness sake! It was written as an act of vandalism, it doesn't go beyond a very poor dicdef, so what exactly do you want to keep? Why not simply write a whole new article to replace this one - and do it yourself rather than saying that someone could do better? Anyway you've forgotten disambiguation - we need to be able to differentiate nagging as scolding from nagging as niggling pains or nagging as awkward memories. You'll find more in the subject in wiktionary (?!) andy (talk) 00:32, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are numerous technical errors in your argument.
  • This is not a WP:DICDEF because it has no focus upon a particular word - no etymology, spelling, grammar &c. That policy explains that editors are often confused by the shortness of an article but that this is no reason to consider the item as a dicdef.
  • The complaint that you are making is instead WP:PERMASTUB - that the article is not able to be expanded. But this has been rebutted by pointing to sources which demonstrate such potential.
  • Actually, the article muddles up the dictionary definition and the behavioural phenomenon of nagging. It's the latter that might be worth an article - but this isn't it.
  • You say that the article should be written afresh. But this is not our editing policy. We do not keep deleting articles until someone gets it right. We keep them in mainspace so that numerous editors may slowly improve the article over time. This early draft has made a good start by citing the nagging letter from an Assyrian wife. This is supported by a citation of the BBC, which is a reliable source, and is easily confirmed - see A history of the ancient Near East. This sourced material should be kept, as advised by our editing policy.
  • It's not an early draft. Mostly the purpose of the present article is as a vehicle for juvenile humour - e.g. on the talk page the author refers to his "jackass links" and the "cheap shot" about Hilary Clinton. He describes the article as a laugh and himself as a smartass. Remove the rubbish and what is left? A single quotation which is not set in any kind of context. Let's face it, not every article can be rescued.
  • You describe the article is vandalism. This description fails to assume good faith. It seems that this editor has been bitten before and so has something to say about this on the talk page. But the article itself does not editorialise in this way and, even if it did, this wouldn't be vandalism. The most one might say is that the article is tongue-in-cheek. But we have lots of articles like this and we commonly feature such an article on April 1st. See wife selling for a similar example. This was thought so ridiculous that some mainstream media described it as a hoax. But it was 100% accurate and so the joke was upon them. Don't let this happen to you.
  • Finally, you challenge me to do this work myself. Be careful what you wish for...
Colonel Warden (talk) 11:47, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The best we can hope for here is a dictionary definition, at worst this will end up being a basket of sentences where people give examples of what they see as nagging. A redirect to wiktionary would be acceptable as well. AniMate 10:54, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The arguments for deletion appear to be two-fold. Firstly that the article was written by an editor now blocked, as an act of vandalism. But even if true that would be irrelevant so long as the product was good. Secondly, that this is now and could never be more than a dictionary definition, which as CW has demonstrated above is patently untrue. Nagging has sociological and psychological effects on the nagger and the nagee, something that would be outside the scope of a simple dictionary definition to explore. That no editor has yet stepped up to expand this stub is not an argument for deletion. Malleus Fatuorum 15:06, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article as it is now is fine. It is more than just a definition. Google book search shows many books have been published about nagging. Dream Focus 17:53, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:HEY. The article can be and has been rescued with the addition of more reliable sources from scholarship on alcohol abuse and related topics. Thanks to Colonel Warden. Bearian (talk) 20:00, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "What about all the Google book search results that have"... brown dog ..."in their title"? I would note that the 'nagging' titles use the term more frequently in terms of either "nagging sense of...", "nagging questions", "nagging, pleading, and threatening", "nagging, nit-picking, & nudging", "Yelling, Nagging and Pleading", (and even in one instance as a metaphor in computer searches) than baldly -- meaning that there is considerably less than full clarity about the concept, which appears to bleed into a wide range of related concepts. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:15, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree. This sounds a little bit like original research to me. This "rescue" process has taken a dictionary definition, emptied the article of all content except for the title and rebuilt it in a manner that supports only one out of several meanings of the term from a psychological perspective. What about a linguistic perspective, for example? The fact is that there is no single such thing as nagging. And btw that's all in wiktionary in a very succinct form. andy (talk) 12:06, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Says who? This is one (Western, psychological, anti-feminist) aspect of "nagging". A proper treatment would start with disambiguation and then consider a far wider range of academic interpretations. Personally I find the emphasis in this article on the alleged female aspects of nagging as offensive and POV, so much so that if this particular AfD fails I'm inclined to relist it in order to tackle this discrimination. andy (talk) 00:49, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your original objection was that this was just a dictionary definition. Now that it isn't just a dictionary definition your ground seems to have changed to its alleged anti-feminist bias. But bias is not a reason for deletion, rather it ought to be a motivation for improvement. It would be interesting, for instance, if you could come up with any equivalent of the scold's bridle that was commonly used on men. Malleus Fatuorum 01:00, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Andy, you're welcome to address alleged bias by editing the article to introduce well-sourced opposing viewpoints. But the topic itself is not inherently discriminatory, and AfD is not the venue for cleanup, content disputes, or resolving ideological arguments. Either the article falls into one of the reasons for deletion or, as in this case, it doesn't. - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:31, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • We generally pick article names on the basis of their usage in reliable sources. The sources unearthed so far for this article uniformly refer to "nagging", not "dysfunctional social behaviour". If it really bothers you, a rename to "Nagging (behaviour)" would probably be the minimum necessary to disambiguate, and redirect nagging there until such time as other articles are created. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:34, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Plus, despite your links I can't see any evidence of significant discussion of pestering, bothering or nit-picking rising beyond a definition sufficient to found an article, whereas we have that discussion for "nagging". - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:00, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong babble 17:24, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect to Wiktionary per WP:DICDEF. SnottyWong babble 17:24, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The amount of research available on the subject of nagging shows that it is notable and also shows that it is a subject that encompasses more than just a dictionary definition. I have added some more references to the article, formatted it, and overall expanded the article a bit. I hope it clearly shows now the notability of the subject. SilverserenC 23:36, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I've just spent some time going through the "rescued" article and I'm depressed by the mediocrity of the writing and the references. There are some major unjustified assumptions and elisions that are very misleading, in particular the assumption that nagging is a social or psychological issue. The references on the other hand tend to see it as a speech behaviour which can best be understood through sociolinguistic analysis. That is not at all the same thing, and anyone who doesn't understand this point should not be contributing to the article. andy (talk) 00:24, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • You seem to keep changing your position. In any event, "mediocrity of writing" has never been a criterion for deletion. If it was, wikipedia's 3 million or so articles would be decimated. Nagging is clearly a social psychology issue, and anyone who doesn't understand this point should not to be contributing to the AfD. Malleus Fatuorum 00:40, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The recent removal of references by Andy was completely against policy and had nothing to do with the expressed policy of WP:ELREG stated in the edit summary, which only applies to external links and not to references used in an article. Thus, Malleus Fatuorum was completely correct in reverting him. I believe Andy should take a look at WP:PAYWALL and please not try and remove references/information from the article again. SilverserenC 01:33, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nagging&oldid=1138110904"