Bloke (word) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The "oppose a full article" arguments are more strongly articulated, but listing Bloke (word) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bloke (word) to allow for more detailed arguments from Green Cardamom.

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)

Each article in an encyclopedia is about a person, or a people, a concept, a place, an event, a thing etc.; whereas a dictionary entry is primarily about a word, an idiom or a term and its meanings, usage and history.

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)

Overturn to transwiki to Wiktionary. Cunard (talk) 22:01, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Scottywong (talk · contribs) wrote that he is traveling until 30 July, so I was unable to contact him before filing this review. However, Rossami did and their discussion is here. Cunard (talk) 22:01, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't think you would transwiki to Wiktionary. They already have a perfectly satisfactory entry at wikt:bloke. I think the question is whether we should have an article about a word, or a soft redirect to Wiktionary.

  Is it possible to have an encyclopaedia article about a word? Certainly. We have thou, a former featured article (delisted after this discussion); at the FAR, editors were rightly unconcerned about its status as an article about a word, because thou goes well beyond dictionary content. Therefore there is—well, not quite a consensus—but at least a substantial precedent for Snotty's close there.

  Should we have this article about a word? No, I don't think so at all. The reason thou is a good subject for an article is because contemporary English lacks a second person singular, which is a very peculiar feature of our language. It's linguistically interesting. Bloke (word) is much less so. I've got a pretty good bookshelf for this sort of thing, and in researching my !vote on this DRV, I pulled down ISBN 0-415-28099-0. Sure enough, there's plenty of discussion of the linguistically interesting word "thou" (e.g. page 339). What does it have to say about "bloke"? Nothing. The article would have you believe that "bloke" is a distinctive part of contemporary Australian English. The best source I have disagrees. It mentions jackass, wombat, kangaroo, boomerang, larrikan and swagman (although curiously not billabong, which I would have expected) as distinctive and linguistically interesting Australian words. Nothing about "bloke".

  Do I think we should overturn? Well, I certainly think the conclusion we reached in that debate was objectively wrong. But DRV is not AfD round 2 so I think the closest we can come is to remand it back to AfD for further consideration.—S Marshall T/C 00:10, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to no consensus- The delete argued that, because the article contains only a definition, usage, etymology, and history, that it's just a lexical entry. The keep side argued that the article goes into greater detail than any dictionary would, so it's therefore more of an encyclopedia article than a dictionary entry. Both sides are more or less correct in what they say, so the outcome of the DRV hinges on how to interpret WP:NOTDICT. Do we interpret it broadly, noting that it requires articles to go above and beyond what you'd find in a dictionary? If so, the article should be kept- but I think that's an overly lenient reading. Or do we interpret it prescriptively, say that it strictly sets out mandatory requirements? If so, the article should not be here- but I think that's an excessively legalistic reading. I don't see that either side of the debate had a clear edge in argument or policy so I think "no consensus" reflects the debate. Reyk _YO! 00:37, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse user opinions on policy are just that: user opinions on policy. Overturning is asking DRV to assume as fact what one side in the case argued, and I find no basis for that. WP:NOT arguments have been getting too much attention in borderline cases--if a majority of the participants don't believe NOT applies, then it probably doesn't, no matter what the minority thinks. Jclemens (talk) 01:31, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per Jclemens. WP:NOTDICT asks a topic goes beyond a dictionary definition of a word, if the majority and the same closer considered it was the case, so be it. Cavarrone (talk) 09:45, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I would seriously question any decision made based on the content in "Examples of use in Australian culture" as being "not the sort of content that is found in dictionaries". While at the most basic level its true - it is NOT the type of stuff you would find in a dictionary -, if you look at the actual content of the section you getThese Australian actors have been called blokes. and this popular poetry book has "bloke" in the title. and here is a news paper story that calls the boyfriend of the countries leader "First bloke". - and that is most certainly NOT encyclopedic content either. -- The Red Pen of Doom 15:14, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse separate article. It goes sufficiently beyond the definition and is expandable into a fuller article. DGG ( talk ) 04:00, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Reasonable close. The sources and content demonstrate that it is not a mere word. Someone else might have called "no consensus", but "delete" with or without transwiki is not a reasonable rough consensus for that discussion. Expanding the entry at Wiktionary is a good idea regardless. Content that stocks at Wiktionary can be cut back here. Do not renominate within six months. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:33, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Per above, also add that the article is not done, there is room for expansion given a chance. "Bloke" means more than just a man, it's a concept: In Australia it is usually used in the sense of an everyman or average joe, someone with a connection to the people ie. an ordinary person. This obviously needs more work but I am confident with time the article will continue to expand along this line, and possibly others. Green Cardamom (talk) 18:19, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. The closing admin decision was sound. The expression is a cultural term as opposed to a simple word. WWGB (talk) 10:36, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse While there wasn't a clear consensus either way, closing as 'keep' was within the discretion of the closing admin, and his judgement appears sound to me: the article clearly goes well beyond a dictionary definition in its current state. Nick-D (talk) 10:47, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse entirely sensible decision. Keep arguments are much stronger. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:59, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse a pretty straightforward case of applying policy and argument. Discussion showed that the article wasn't in violation of [Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary]], which explicitly says this kind of article is appropriate, as the discussion found. Closure was in thus in line with the discussion and the policy. WilyD 13:06, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]