Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cockblock (4th nomination)

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. There is no general agreement on whether this article is destined to always be just a dictionary definition, or if there is the potential for further expansion. There has been a recent effort to improve the article, so perhaps some time should be given to see where this leads. -Scottywong | soliloquize _ 23:19, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cockblock

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

This is essentially a dictionary entry. As such, it is inappropriate for inclusion here, per WP:NAD: "Wikipedia is not a dictionary or a slang, jargon or usage guide". This does not seem to have been a topic in the previous nominations, possibly because the policy is more recent. As a dictionary entry, the word is already covered at wikt:cockblock, therefore transwikification is not required. Sandstein 20:33, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"more recent"? You need to refresh your knowledge of history. The Project:Wikipedia is not a dictionary policy is in fact the oldest policy page that we have. Uncle G (talk) 10:45, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:00, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:01, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing more than a dictionary definition. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 21:20, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- And salt, since it has been deleted and recreated. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 21:22, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JohnCD (talk) 19:00, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relister's comment: as this was kept at two previous AfDs, I think more opinions are needed. Note that the article was somewhat fuller at the time of those keep decisions: AfD2 13 Aug 08, AfD3 3 Oct 08. JohnCD (talk) 19:07, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - let's take this slowly as it's plainly a bit of a pinkie trap, given the 4 previous AfDs with differing outcomes. Having read through all of them - quite fascinating, actually - it seems that when this topic is written up hastily, it comes across as obviously unencyclopedic and WP:NAD, so everyone agrees to delete. If it's written up over-enthusiastically with graphic detail of how to cockblock, WP:HOWTO cuts in and people at once say delete. But if it's written up a bit more subtly with more citations, people angrily insist it's a perfectly valid topic and vote keep! This 5th incarnation is on the WP:NAD side, by the way, but we could easily add some of the old citations back to confuse matters. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:36, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SO, what to do? If psychologists have in fact studied this subject (let's make up a title: "Negative male-male courtship rivalry interactions in the establishment of dominance hierarchies", doesn't it sound plausible) then we'd easily have an article, but we'd obviously not call it Cockblock. Since, therefore, the name is a critical element in the article, I think we have to conclude that it's actually an amusing word with an internal rhyme, describing a small bit of (anti)social behaviour in a way that's fundamentally dictionary-like. Therefore... Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:36, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Delete, not a dictionary, nor a how-to manual (Scylla and Charybdis) Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:36, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is WP:NOTURBANDICTIONARY. Carrite (talk) 00:23, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm not for jargon/slang/neogolism terms as much as anyone, but this is an old term, gets used all the time, and the real clincher, there's a lot more discussion here about it than just a dictionary definition. I'm also persuaded by the previous AfDs' conclusions. Shadowjams (talk) 09:31, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, I was just speaking hypothetically to show why there isn't any substance to the article; nor are there substantial citations in the earlier AfDs which were basically "ILIKEIT" and "it's a cute word" non-arguments. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:51, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's a good thing then I didn't make any of the strawman arguments you're attributing to me; I actually addressed most of the points you just made... characterizing my, or the previous AfD keeps, as "ilikeit" is quite the stretch. Shadowjams (talk) 20:41, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the article wasn't always a DICDEF. Checking through past revisions, it once resembled this - a wacky but informative little piece. The fact that various editors and vandals have seen fit to hack the article to pieces is not an excuse to delete. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 16:57, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm, if you'll take a minute to look over what I've written above, you're right, it wasn't always as it is, which is kind of why there's a problem with the topic. However it's been written up, it has always been seriously flawed, one way or the other, because the topic just isn't encyclopedia material - it's either a dicdef (written one way) or a howto (written another). Hope this helps. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:49, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The page version I referred to contained no examples of "tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, game guides [or] recipes" demonstrating how to cockblock. I unfortunately do not understand your assertion that a non-dicdef article would be a violation of WP:HOWTO. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 19:05, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's another hazard very close to the article - if you just write about the term, it's a definition; if you write about how to do the activity named, it's a howto; what seems to be lacking in either the current or earlier versions of the article is a set of reliable, independent sources that substantially discuss the topic. If you can locate such sources either from earlier versions or from the outside world, I'll join you in saying keep - but not until. I couldn't find any. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:16, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with the sources on this version. (The one I referred to originally). They all have Wikipedia articles, which is the highest indication of notability that I'm aware of. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 21:25, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That version seems to me like a dictionary definition with a little bit of trivia added. If this were to grow into a real, informative encyclopedia article, can you briefly tell us what kind of information it would contain? Ben Kovitz (talk) 13:33, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- essentially a dictionary reference; it's been 4 years since the last AfD, so clearly the consensus has changed; independent sources are mostly lacking. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 04:29, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In this article's seven-year history, no one has ever put in any information beyond definitions and a trivia like "so-and-so used this word" and "there's a bar named Cockblock in San Francisco". I've read the previous AfD debates, and there was no mention of substance that would be covered by a potential article about this topic; see the first bullet point at WP:WHYN. Apparently cockblocking has never received substantial, in-depth coverage in reliable sources; it has only been passingly mentioned here and there (see WP:GNG). —Ben Kovitz (talk) 13:50, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This reminds me of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walk of shame (2nd nomination) where we had a crappy article that clearly could be made better. If you look at old version Suriel cited above [1] you can see a bit more promise from the current version. The 2nd and 3rd AfDs reached the correct result. The problem with an article like this is that its more prone to be subject to vandalism and edits from inexperienced editors, as well as experienced editors who assume the vulgar topic surely can't be notable.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:46, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have now done some work on the article, including adding scholarly articles that discuss the term, and have referenced it in terms of how the behavior may help deter intervention in situations of interpersonal violence. I also added references to the first documentation of the term, by Edith Folb in the early 1970s. This AfD also reminds me of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guido (slang) (2nd nomination), where folks also assumed there was no research on the topic.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 15:08, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Due to the expansion and improvements to the article by User:Milowent. The topic appears to be more elaborate than a dictionary definition, and additional sources have been added to the article demonstrating this. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:18, 30 May 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.