Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Goofing off

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 no consensus (kept by default). Several concerns were raised that deserve attention: overlapping with other articles, and the title itself - Nabla (talk) 19:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Goofing off

Goofing off (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

An amusing piece of original research, with references and stuff, and all appearances of an encyclopedic article. On other words, an excellent piece of goofing off :-) `'Míkka>t 00:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Weak delete, without prejudice to recreation. There are probably sources out there that discuss goofing off in some depth, but none are presented; however, that shouldn't preclude the presentation of some later. Celarnor Talk to me 02:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep This is technically a notable subject. If "duh" can have an article, shouldn't "goofing off"? This has third party references anyway. TheNobleSith (talk) 04:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
duh isn't an article. It's a redirect to wiktionary. Celarnor Talk to me 04:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep There are lots of scholarly sources for this. The only issue is whether it is better covered elsewhere. Idling is something else and Skiving, Bunking off, Dawdling, Gawping don't exist. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete. Article may be misplaced? In my view, article would be better placed in the wiktionary. --Abrech (talk) 09:07, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not a reasonable topic for an encyclopedia article, but could be fine for a dictionary entry. --Itub (talk) 10:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I have made a quick cleanup pass through the article to improve its tone and references. I like the reference that talks of "mouse potatoes, people who hide from real life and spend their whole life goofing off in cyberspace." but have restrained myself as it is perhaps too painfully accurate here. :) Colonel Warden (talk) 11:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Cut it out, get back to work I can see where a decent article might be written about the origins of the term, but it would fall in the same category as coffee break or sleep or reading. Besides, the Emperor Nero was not goofing off. Fiddle playing can be hard work. Mandsford (talk) 12:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
No, discussion of the origins of the term would be dictionary material. I already checked the origin of the term in the OED and it wasn't interesting enough to include in the article. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:07, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
In case it is not clear, what I've been doing is create stubby sections as I encounter a source which discusses some new aspect of the topic. These are short because I am trying to avoid writing an essay of my own which would be OR. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect: to somewhere, anywhere. For pity's sake, we don't have separate articles for "Having sex," "Buying groceries," "Changing your oil," "Lighting fires" or any of the other bajillion things humans do. The etymology of the phrase is better served on Wiktionary.  RGTraynor  16:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
No, but we have articles on Sex, Store, Oil, and Fire. Celarnor Talk to me 16:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • (Celarnor just beat me to it) We certainly do have articles about these things - see Sexual intercourse, Shopping, Service (motor vehicle) and Making fire. It seems that your objection is purely to the tone of the title. But you don't offer a better alternative. And since scholars in the fields of education, business and sociology don't mind using this term, why should we?Colonel Warden (talk) 16:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Changing to keep due to presentation of potential sources; it was borderline for me anyway. Celarnor Talk to me 16:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep as a disambiguation page referring to procrastination, slacking, idleness and anything else appropriate. The cited sources do refer to "goofing off", but they don't imply that this is a term of art or has any consistently defined difference from the terms I just mentioned. (I note that the definition for "goof (off)" in the Oxford English Dictionary is much more general than the one used in this article: "To dawdle, to spend time idly or foolishly; to 'skive'; to gawp; to let one's attention wander.") It would be better to refer the reader elsewhere than to provide a list of facts based on articles which happen to use one particular slang expression. If the current content is kept, the article should be renamed to have a clear and non-slang title, like evasion of responsibility. EALacey (talk) 18:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • This is not how we use disambiguation pages. To discuss the various aspects of goofing off, we would just wikilink in the course of a normal article. Retitling is a better idea but the trouble here is that article titles should be the form of words which a reader is mostly like to use. I fancy that evasion of responsibility fails this test. Also, if you look at how the phrase is used, you can see that it typically means something different. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. I don't mean that procrastination, etc. are aspects of something called "goofing off". I mean that "goofing off" is a term which can refer to various things including procrastination, but isn't the name for any distinct concept. And I think that the current article bears this opinion out, in that the phenomena it lists seem to be distinct only in that a reliable source happens to have used the phrase "goofing off" for each of them. For example, the cited article by Cynthia R. Shuster encourages people to take leisure time but doesn't appear to be about neglecting "obligations of work or society" at all. If consensus is to have an article about "engaging in recreation or an idle pastime while obligations of work or society are neglected", I think we're going to have to accept that there is no way to express that precise concept in one or two words; accuracy is more important for determining an article name than plausibility as a search term. (You're right that "evasion of responsibility" usually means something more like "denial of guilt" and isn't a good name for this article.) EALacey (talk) 20:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. More than a dicdef, sources are available. I can't in all honesty construct an elaborate counterargument to that kind of frivolous nomination. --Kizor 06:14, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep due to another outstanding job of finding sources! Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Dictionary definition; but I must admit I stared at this with lots of ideas to "fluff" this up. Kinda defines "self-fulfilling prophecy" goofing off by padding the "goofing off" article. King Pickle (talk) 19:39, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:DICT. -- Dougie WII (talk) 23:07, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep notable, encyclopedic, well written, good sources. Gandalf61 (talk) 17:53, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


  • Keep I think because so many people goof off by reading Wikipedia at work, this article should be polished a bit and expanded, and be featured on Wikipedia's front page!207.43.79.22 (talk) 16:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep although I agree with Colonel Warden. Is there a one-word noun that means the same thing as "goofing off"? (Procrastination isn't quite the same thing.) If so, rename to that, and create some redirects for common synonyms. So Awesome (talk) 15:57, 20 April 2008 (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.