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. WP:NOTDICT is the main argument being used for deletion/transwiki, but the argument is not convincing, mainly because (as many have pointed out) the article contains a lot of sourced content that would not be appropriate for a dictionary (like the "History" and "Examples of use in Australian culture" sections, for example). -Scottywong| speak _ 15:55, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bloke (word) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is some disagreement at Talk:Bloke#Bloke is broke. about whether Bloke (word) violates Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. I have created this procedural nomination to determine whether Bloke (word) should be transwikied to Wiktionary (at wikt:bloke) or kept as a Wikipedia article. A previous AfD discussion occurred in April 2007 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bloke. As this is a procedural nomination, I am neutral. Cunard (talk) 19:38, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The article is clearly not just a dictionary definition, but goes into much detail about origins and cultural issues, as do other Wikipedia articles on other words such as dude or whilst. The article appears to have met the expectation expressed in the prior AFD that this article be expanded, and it has. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:45, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• (Speedy?) Keep - There are an origin, changes, and an impact. That's it. It's not like Celebrity X on Twitter or Woody Interruptus. --George Ho (talk) 19:47, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I would oppose a "speedy keep". I don't think there's any harm in having a full discussion about the article to settle the dispute. Cunard (talk) 19:49, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: plenty of content beyond what would be appropriate in a dictionary, especially the Australian culture section. PamD 19:55, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• comment for those saying "plenty of content" - please check the references to find out whether the sources actually support the claims they are making. I have not reviewed them all, but the three places I checked earlier were all original research where the references had the word "bloke" in them but the analysis and commentary in the article was all the creation of the Wikipedia editor and non-existant in the source. I dont have time to do a thorough review right now.-- The Red Pen of Doom 19:59, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did go through them and share your impressions -- see my comments bellow. Snow (talk) 21:48, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I finally had time to go through all the references currently in the article and in the previous incarnation of this page. All do include the word "bloke" and document its existence and meaning. Excluding the dictionaries, not one of the sources were actually about the word either as a word or as a cultural concept. Rossami (talk) 22:18, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• transwiki although there is a lot of concept content it is, as it says in the very first sentence, "a slang term". And Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary says (again, helpfully, the first sentence) "Wikipedia is not a dictionary or a slang, jargon or usage guide". There is a lot of content but that all follows on from the definition of the word and its usage as a word. I.e. it's all content suitable for a slang dictionary or usage guide, not an encyclopaedia.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 20:10, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Couldn't the same be said for any other Wikipedia article about a word? ~Amatulić (talk) 20:54, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yup, which is why it is almost never allowed. There are exceptions where the meaning of an extremely important term can be highly variable in context, but note that this only happens if the word already has a (non-disambiguation) page which deals with the core subject matter. For example America/American and American (word). Snow (talk) 21:35, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Soft-redirect to Wiktionary using ((wi)). The page is a very thorough and well-written dictionary definition. It contains definition, etymology and examples of usage, all content that one would expect to see in a truly great, unabridged dictionary. It does not, however, contain anything beyond that. The word "bloke" is used in culture but contrary to the claim above has had no significant impact on culture. There are no sources provided either in the article or Talk that identify any significant cultural impact (though the sources do confirm that the word is used). The definition is in paragraph format but that alone does not distinguish a dicdef from an encyclopedia article. The page retains only lexical content despite several attempts and more than enough time for improvement and expansion. (I can't argue to transwiki in this case because almost all the content is already on the Wiktionary page. What detail is not already there should be added by cut-and-paste with attribution. Transwiki works better for titles that Wiktionary doesn't already have.) Note that while the earlier verion of this page was kept, it was not kept as is. By consensus of the editors working on the page, the earlier dictionary definition was eventually turned into the disambiguation page now at bloke. This version was separately created but resolves none of the issues that led to the removal of the earlier dicdef content. Rossami (talk) 20:36, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rossami, can you point to where the rules discuss impact on culture? Thanks. Green Cardamom (talk) 21:42, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I believe he is referencing WP:GNG. Like any other Wikipedia article, the subject must have analytical coverage in its sources to prove its impact and establish notability, though in this case it must also pass other more specific bars than GNG, as per discussions elsewhere on this AfD. I think -- and I don't want to put words into his mouth here but he seems to be on the same page as me -- that he is attempting to stress that the mere fact that the word exists and is used (even prominently) is not sufficient to warrant an article. This, of course, is a common issue explored in AfD and is not restricted to lexical entries. Snow (talk) 21:58, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is nothing that says an encyclopedia article must have a discussion of an impact on culture. That is merely an example of the kind of content that would be encyclopedic as opposed to merely lexical. The section noting that examples of usage of a word in culture are merely lexical can be found at Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary#Not size. Rossami (talk) 21:51, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • From the article:

        [The] verse collection "The Songs of a Sentimental Bloke" was published in 1915, "revealing as it did to Australians their own slang and culture of the common people."

      • Is that not an impact on culture? It's the kind of quote you would want to have in an encyclopedia article, but not in a dictionary. Green Cardamom (talk) 22:28, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • That verse collection is evidence that the word "bloke" was in use in 1915 and that's all. The phrase that you appended at the end refers to the book, not to the word. The source is quite clear, reading in full "it [the book] was a roaring success (selling 66,000 copies in its first eighteen months), revealing as it did...". Words do not sell "66,000 copies". The book is notable. That does mean that each individual word used in the title is therefore encyclopedic. Rossami (talk) 23:15, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Beyond evidence of use, the book helped "reveal" (make popular) slang in general in Australian culture, according to this quote. The word bloke, by way of the book title, is evidently included in this idea, it couldn't be otherwise without being nonsensical (or redundant if made explicit). Green Cardamom (talk) 00:31, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • the subject of the article, the word "bloke" did NONE of this. the series of poems did. this is yet another example of original research of applying your own personal interpretation that far exceeds the analysis or commentary in the actual sources. -- The Red Pen of Doom 00:40, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • Well I'm not convinced by your argument, it is unsupported. The quote is about the verse collection's influence on Australian culture, specifically mentioning introduced/revealed "slang" contained in the collection, which obviously includes bloke, in the title of the book and the subject of this article. It's not my interpretation, there is no other way to read it. Unless you can provide an alternate reading (you mentioned it was just about the verse collection, but that ignores the part about slang). Green Cardamom (talk) 01:59, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                • The source says nothing about 'bloke' (except for in its mention of the name of the poetry collection). The poetry collection obviously uses 'bloke', at least in its title but I'd assume inside, but it's not a reliable source for anything.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 02:31, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Then what does the quote say? I'm really at a loss. It can't mean anything but that bloke (and other slang) had an influence on Australian culture through the verse collection "The Songs of a Sentimental Bloke". If there is some other way to read it please tell me because I can't see it. Green Cardamom (talk) 03:03, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                    • The obvious interpretation of that whole sentence in its original context is that the book had an influence on Australian culture through its descriptions of slang generally (of which, "bloke" is merely one example) and its description of the "culture of the common people". Rossami (talk) 04:39, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • Forgive me if I come off brusque here - I'm not intending to be, just trying to clarify this point as cleanly as possible -- but notice what you just said: "the word bloke". Not the book "Bloke" or the person "Alfred Bloke", bur rather the word. Wikipedia does not have articles for words, except in extremely rare cases where the word is of global importance and has many conflicting definitions that require delineation. Think of it like this: would "art (word)" or "finance (word)" or "earthquake (word)" have any fewer sources or any less cultural or practical relevance than "bloke (word)"? Clearly not, and yet we'd disallow these entries as well, because we are not in the business on this project of defining words or tracing their history; we concern ourselves with the real entities, phenomena and subjects that words refer to, not individual words. That is why we have millions and millions of redirects and disambig pages -- because we realize that one word may refer to multiple subjects or one subject may be referred to by multiple names, but it is not our mandate here (and indeed it counter-intuitive and impractical for an encyclopedia) to define and treat every synonym for every real world subject or concept. Wikipedia would quickly devolve into an unusable mess where no one could find the information they are looking for if we did that. Snow (talk) 01:16, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • Thanks for the thoughts. Not out to make an article for every word, believe the word is encyclopedic. Green Cardamom (talk) 01:59, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                • But why would be my next question then. It's a slang term with an obvious and more or less uniform meaning that has had no greater impact than any one of thousands of similar slang terms (in English alone, not even factoring in other languages). Why "bloke" and not "buddy," "pal," "dude," "bro," "bud," and "mate"? And surely you can see if we let this bar be the standard, then virtually any word would qualify and we might as well not even have a "not a dictionary" policy. Snow (talk) 03:06, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                  • See slippery slope, logical fallacy, one doesn't lead to another, just working on bloke, sources determine articles. Green Cardamom (talk) 04:12, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                    • So does policy: WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. And yes, one actually does lead to the other here, since without consistent policies based on community consensus there is no way to proscribe any form of article. Snow (talk) 09:42, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Re: "sources determine articles" - That is the fundamental problem. Despite years of trying, no one has been able to find any sources to substantiate more than a mere dictionary definition. All the sources in the article confirm the existence of the word. But that has never been in question. What sources go beyond mere lexical content and casual references? Rossami (talk) 22:24, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki/redirect to the Wiktionary entry Clearly a lexical entry and in violation of WP:NOTDICT; bloke is simply a contextual colloquialism for "man" and we have an entry for that, obviously. Note this was also the finding of an RfC on the issue before the article was even created, but that a draft was made and inappropriately promoted to article space over the consensus. The entry has been inflated by nonsensically separating "Etymology," "Origin" and "History" into three sections, and all of the sources are either A) etymological in nature, or B) do not even address the subject matter and its relevance but rather just use the word in passing (Archetypal Aussie Still a Likable Bloke in "Dundee" or Actor the quintessential Aussie bloke). One source examines the social meaning of the word but is hardly sufficient to meet the extremely stringent standards for allowing purely lexical entries on Wikipedia; we allow this only for words like American that are of massive importance and have many highly variable and contextual meanings. Please note the distinction that I am making here between a general-purpose word and a specific non-lexical subject matter -- I would not, for example, oppose the creation of the article First Bloke, assuming a few more sources were found demonstrating its cultural relevance, as this would refer to a concrete independent subject. But the current entry is clearly lexical and belongs at Wiktionary. Etymological, semantic, or grammatical content (and sources) should be merged into the entry on that project, to the extent they are appropriate. Snow (talk) 21:28, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note Australia's First Bloke already appears in an appropriate article: First_Lady#First_Gentleman, while the post is discussed here and the current occupant here.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 21:37, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bloke (word) is also an appropriate place to discuss first bloke, assuming the article is kept, since it has to do with the word bloke. Green Cardamom (talk) 21:40, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yep, good catch. And, not to beat the dead horse, that all seems like appropriate content as it describes specific individuals and positions, which are appropriate to an encyclopedia, as opposed to common-usage definition of a word, which is why we have dictionaries. Snow (talk) 21:47, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • It might be an appropriate place to discuss it, if there are sources that actually discuss or analyse the usage/impact of the phrase, and not simply sources that refer to him as "First Bloke". -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:51, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a dictionary definition, (despite handwaving unsubstantiated claims it isn't), or perhaps transwiki to Wiktionary. Edison (talk) 22:56, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Jenks24 (talk) 04:22, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Bloke is a cultural expression rather than a word. There are many similar expressions in Wikipedia, such as homie, mate (colloquialism) and geezer. WWGB (talk) 04:44, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Geezer is a disambig page and the other two are arguably candidates for deletion themselves. Regardless, this article clearly violates WP:NOTDICT and labeling it a "cultural expression" and suggesting that this somehow makes it not a word (and thus not lexical entry) is a non-sequitur based on an arbitrary and artificial distinction. Snow (talk) 10:11, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • See WP:OTHERSTUFF. It's irrelevant what other articles exist, given that there's no barrier to creating articles on anything. There are examples and counterexamples for both outcomes (e.g. many such pages have previously been deleted). Which is why we instead use the rules and guidelines.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 11:51, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The content is for the most part dictionary content, though I appreciate the thoroughness of the coverage and do think that there is a place for some articles on words on Wikipedia. The section "Influences in Australian culture" seems strongest in this regard, but even it is a bit too much like original research from primary sources. That is, the sources use the word to describe Australian men rather than analyzing the word as an aspect of Australian culture. I don't regard this as an insuperable argument for deletion, but neither do I think I can really argue to keep the article. Cnilep (talk) 01:12, 13 July 2012 (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.