Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glom

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 19:43, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Glom

Factually questionable dicdef. Kelly Martin 22:01, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

• The etymology is totally false, but it's apparently a real word of some kind. See [1]. But only a word, and only a dicdef. Transwiki and delete. Postdlf 22:06, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Please be less free with the "transwiki to Wiktionary" cry and check Wiktionary first, as recommended at Wikipedia:Things to be moved to Wiktionary. Wiktionary had had glom for 8 months prior to the creation of this article. Uncle G 02:43, 2005 May 15 (UTC)
    • Oh. Then just delete. Postdlf 20:56, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
• Don't transwiki in the current form. I've hear the word glom fairly frequently, well before 2002 and far from South Dakota, and not meaning this. Samaritan 22:24, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This entry is inaccurate as to the word's origin and its examples of usage are jokes, and Wiktionary already has an entry for glom. --Metropolitan90 22:37, May 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This is a dictionary article about a verb (and, as noted, a bad one at that), not an encyclopaedia article about a person/concept/place/thing/event. Nothing appears suitable as a target for a redirect. Delete. Uncle G 02:43, 2005 May 15 (UTC)
• Delete, neologism. Megan1967 03:26, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. As noted, it's already in Wiktionary. Disappointed that neither article mentions Carl Barks, GLOM was one of his favourite and most effective action tags. Andrewa 14:35, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: And I also find it a little bit disappointing that this article was the first attempt by a new contributor, but it was listed on VfD one minute after creation (which would of course create an edit conflict if the contributor was trying to expand it from the dicdef), and all the above people voted to delete without offering the contributor any discussion, welcome or advice. The problem is not just that many people, faced with an edit conflict on top of all the rest, won't stay and join the project, perceiving us as an unfriendly and unapproachable lot. The problem is also that those who do stay after this sort of treatment will tend to be biased towards the ones who are going to troll, promote vanities and POVs, and generally waste our time. Food for thought? Andrewa 14:48, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

• In my defense, I listed this on VfD not because it was a stub dicdef (I would have marked that differently; I spend a lot of time on RC patrol) but because it was pretty obvious bullshit, but not quite obvious enough to be a CSD. It is difficult to assume that the original author of this article offered it in good faith, WP:FAITH notwithstanding. I will not lose sleep over whether my janitorial activities are chasing away new editors who start out their Wikicareers by offering us cruft in bad faith. Kelly Martin 19:31, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: No need to lose sleep, or to defend yourself. But you might have a look at the pages on wikilove and personal attacks (that's regarding the allegation of bullshit), and I disagree with your interpretation of assume good faith. We all find it difficult at times, but the idea is that we should want evidence of bad faith, not just negative feelings which can arise from all sorts of personality clashes. No change of vote. Andrewa 16:40, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.