Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Childlike mentality

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

This article went through several versions during the discussion period. Despite the revisions, the general concensus remained a decision to delete the content as original research. To be honest, the current version strikes me as more dictionary-definition than original research but dictionary definitions are also listed in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. I believe that the current version remains a "delete" decision but without prejudice if someone wants to contribute the current content to Wiktionary. I also note that the article is an orphan. Rossami (talk) 03:47, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Childlike mentality

[edit]

POV original research. Jayjg (talk) 14:43, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Possible Merge? I would like to make it clear that I only created the article because I could not think of a proper context for the material: if people do have an idea as to how to merge content with more appropriate articles, that'd work better for everyone. Cwolfsheep 15:30, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Context isn't the problem. This would be a perfectly good article if "childlike mentality" were an established concept and you were just writing about it. But you're trying to establish it. That's what makes it "original research" and thus inappropriate for an encylopedia. ----Isaac R 17:20, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changing my vote to Keep: I believe I've resolved the issues at hand and have implemented Tomer's suggestions. Cwolfsheep 23:14, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Jayjg. The references don't support use of the term "childlike mentality" for most of the behaviors listed in the article, so it's essentially a neologism. Article appears to simply be an excuse for a laundry list of humanist criticisms of religion. Humanist criticism of religion is encyclopedic, but this article isn't. Quale 16:42, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. <tongue position="glued to cheek">Or redirect to Examples of childlike tantrums.</tongue> Tomer TALK 17:14, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
    • Changing my vote to Keep. The article in its current form could use some fleshing out and probably needs a {{cleanup}} and appropriate {{stub}} attached to it, tho. I'd also like to commend User:Cwolfsheep for his patience and willingness to compromise in this process. Tomer TALK 22:46, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

Solution? Actually, there's some valid criticism here. I've had my friends suggest its well written, but I keep thinking that maybe it'd belong more in a different wiki. If I just strip out or minimalize the religious content, would that resolve the conflict (Leave up the pop-culture & insult portions and/or migrate it to Wiktionary as defining the phrase?). Would it also be allowable if I just deleted it myself? I really don't want to end up banned or with talk pages that argue I should be: there's plenty of other stuff I write that isn't so "blaise." Cwolfsheep 18:31, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • The problem really isn't with the discussion of religious content (see secular humanism, rationalism, et al.). It is that this article is original research, and therefore doesn't really belong in the Wikipedia. Not sure about other wikis (this is the only one I work on, so my knowledge is limited). I don't think anyone is even remotely suggesting that you be banned (and if they do, they ought to be pointed to WP:BITE). Even though this article isn't encyclopedic, you are a helpful and welcome editor (good work especially on early voting) and I hope you stay and continue to improve our encyclopedia. -- Jonel 19:30, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you try to migrate to Wiktionary, you'll still have to convince people that the phrase "childlike mentality" isn't your own invention. As for putting the material in other articles: there's nothing to prevent you from doing that, but you'll have to deal with other contributors to those articles, who might think your contributions are POV or out of place. As long as deal with such disputes in an orderly manner that's respectful of the concerns of other contributors, there's no reason to fear getting banned. In any case, that's all beyond the scope of a VfD debate. ----Isaac R 19:38, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody has suggested a ban: but I did not know if getting a article pulled would raise any flags or not; its kinda embarassing, but I half suspected this was a shaky article based on subject matter. If you check the "uses," the term is definately not my invention. The only thing that was "invented" was the religious context: I was describing a set of behaviors that I could not directly assign to any other term, and was hoping someone had heard of one. The religious material should go there (probably under a fundamentalist article); the rest of the stuff can stay put, but at that point is more gramattical & would probably belong in Wiktionary. Cwolfsheep 20:44, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Your categorization of what you (and I have no doubt others of like mindset, including your aforementioned friends) call the "religious content" is worded in a strongly judgmental tone (read "POV"), and I don't see how that tone can possibly be extracted from the article without extracting all the content. In other words, it sounds like an opinion piece, an expression of an opinion which you're certainly entitled to hold, but which has no place in wikipedia. Maybe you could start Wikipolitics. :-) Tomer TALK 21:09, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Some person's POV rant against Christianity/religion in general. I might even go so far as to say that the article itself shows a childlike mentality. --Xcali 21:12, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reaffirming my vote after the change to the article. It seems that this article would better titled "Childlike," and even then, it isn't likely to be much more than a dicdef. --Xcali 16:32, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]


I'm not hearing anyone offer any solutions besides just deleting it. There seems to be a tie between "something can be done with it, just not here" & "delete the humanist rant". Bias is for delete. I'm not going to waste 4 more days on getting skewered: I know people get banned for pulling stunts, and I don't want to come across as having done so. If this was a stunt, I assure you I wouldn't have attempted to document it online or without linking to related topics. Cwolfsheep 21:33, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't think anyone's really jumped on you. It may be unpleasant to have an article you clearly spent some time compiling almost immediately get slapped with a VfD sticker, but I don't think anyone's really railing against you for it, I just think the consensus is that its material is unencyclopedic and/or inappropriate for wikipedia...and I certainly don't think anyone has even thought "ban". Some of my comments may have sounded like skewering, and for that I apologize--I sometimes don't word things very diplomatically.  :-p I don't think it's a humanist rant, I think it's an antireligious rant. Like I said tho, you're entitled to your opinions, they're just not appropriate for WP article-space. You're certainly free to cut and paste the content to your userspace. User:Cwolfsheep#My views on religion or whatever. :-p Still trying to get my tongue unstuck... -t Tomer TALK 21:59, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Original research. — Phil Welch 23:56, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Article "gutted"

[edit]

I've removed the portions that seemed to offend people & moved that content to my user page as an "exiled article" (for lack of a better term). Cwolfsheep 22:25, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, even after the above-mentioned removals, it's still POV and original research. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 08:52, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as personal essay, original research, and neologism, unless convincing references are provided that show that this specific phrase is in widespread use with a specific meaning that is not simply the ordinary meaning of the word "mentality" modified by the ordinary meaning of the adjective "childlike." Dpbsmith (talk) 12:12, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I appreciate the effort to improve the article, so I looked at it again. As an article, it's better, but the subject remains the problem. Dpbsmith succinctly points out why this subject is not encyclopedic and can't be made encyclopedic without proof that the phrase is used the way the article claims. I don't see that demonstrated in the provided references. No change in vote. Quale 01:06, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not seeing a change in vote. Should I just go ahead & delete the article now? Cwolfsheep 03:05, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • You can't delete it yourself, only an admin can do that. I think you should wait for the VfD to run its course, and then an admin will come along and process the result. Jayjg (talk) 14:46, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup. Not great as it stands, but encyclopedic enough. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:15, 3 Jun 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Childlike_mentality&oldid=1048106597"