Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Take a dump
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 delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Take a dump
First part is nothing more than a dictionary definition. Latter part is a massive, unsourced trivia section of casual uses of the term. Niether is IMHO particularly useful for the project. TexasAndroid (talk) 17:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- Take a dump on this crap. Delete JuJube (talk) 18:06, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Per JuJube (talk) . --The Helpful One (Review) 18:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- Flush the crap as dicdef and trivia combined. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 21:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Keepper WP:ILIKEIT which although an argument to avoid in AfD I choose not to this time, by WP:IAR. There is no rule against including a dicdef in an article, and there is no rule against including some trivia in an article. You can not extrapolate the inclusion criteria that clearly states that articles that are merely a dictionary definition are not allowed, and articles that are merely trivia are not allowed, to mean that articles that contain either or god forbid both must be deleted right away. This article is perhaps not written in the kind of prose that we want our better articles written in, but it does contain sufficient encyclopedic content to warrant exclusion from both the dicdef and triv arguments above. Combining the arguments together is a self-disproving argument, actually, because they both contain the word merely, which means "and nothing else but". I can see tagging this for sources, and asking the editors to refactor it into more prose and make it less list-y, but overall it is pretty good and I imagine it would fit nicely on the main page someday.So again, KEEP.JERRY talk contribs 22:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)- I don't know if WP:ATA is necessarily a rule as per IAR. Nothing there says you can't use the argument, just that it won't hold much water, and I don't think this is an exception. I have nothing against issuing a WP:HEY challenge, indeed if someone wants to (ahem) polish this turd, be my guest. -- RoninBK T C 23:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete clearly being used as a dictionary definition followed by a list of trivia. Exactly what we're not looking for in an encyclopedia. RFerreira (talk) 23:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Intended to be funny....I guess. Author has apparently researched every movie scene where a character has expressed a particular bodily need, and then limited it to those instances where the person announced that he was going to "take a dump". The description of the anatomical parts involved in the defecation process gave the article added sophistication. Mandsford (talk) 23:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete -- down the S-bend with this one. - Longhair\talk 09:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- Dump per the above arguments. dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 09:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- comment Well, I never knew of this usage, but in the IT (information technology) world 'to take a dump' is to make a copy of computer memory at at certain point in time and place the copy in a data set or print it for study. Taking a dump (dumping memory) is usually done when trying to solve a problem (often an abnormal processing condition) in a computer software program. I don't see any of this in the article. Where should it be? Hmains (talk) 23:52, 15 February 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.
