Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Intellectual whimsy

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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. Consensus seems to be that the article is original research, and thus unsuitable for inclusion. Wiktionary is perhaps a better place to cover the term. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:46, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Intellectual whimsy

edit
Intellectual whimsy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Not WP:Notable. Most of the sources cited do not even use the expression. Intellectual whimsy is real but there is no reason to call it that rather than "quaint cleverness", "old-fashioned mind-games", or whatever you like. Until there is a generally accepted name an article on it is WP:Original research Northwestgnome (talk) 04:12, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - the article could do a better job defining its subject and focusing on encyclopedia relevant aspects of the topic, but that doesn't mean it isn't worthy of inclusion. The idea expressed here is a common and notable one and a find the argument that an idea has to have one unique term to be bizarre. Many subjects are known by more than one term and it certainly isn't original research to pick one of them (normally the most common) for an article title and redirect the rest. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:13, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I found the term in a dictionary; however, it was only being used as a definition for "conceit" (and not one of the first ones, either): Grambs, David (1985). Literary Companion Dictionary: Words About Words‎. p. 73. conceit: An elaborated metaphor, fanciful analogy, or cleverly evocative turn of expression, sometimes one that is affected or strained; intellectual whimsy; stylistic artifice.
The earliest usage I found was Masson, David Mather (1854). De Quincey and Prose Writing. p. 165. A man, for the most part, would be ashamed of permitting himself in prose the same freedom of intellectual whimsy, the same arbitrariness of combination, the same riot of imagery, the same care for the exquisite in sound and form, perhaps even the same depth and fervour of feeling, that he would exhibit unabashed in verse. ...
And after all of this, plus some other research, it came down to: either it's a phrase with a single definition, in which case it goes to wiktionary, or it's a phrase that can be any of a number of things, in which case it's not encyclopedic. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 07:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Phrases of this sort are not the exclusive property of Wiktionary as they are commonly used as article titles here. For example, clicking random article a few times and skipping over the villages and asteroids, we have Barnsley Town Hall, Music of Bermuda, Negative resistance. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:17, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I look at the phrases you mention, and it's obvious to me what they describe. I'm not talking about getting rid of all phrases (obviously!); just one that doesn't actually have a fixed meaning—that is, there's nothing to actually write an article about. To use more examples from the definition above, WP doesn't have articles on elaborated metaphor, fanciful analogy, or stylistic artifice, either (and shouldn't). Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 22:43, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It does not seem obvious that the Music of Bermuda should include Scottish bagpipe music, as the article tells us. Is the Music of Bermuda any music which is played there or what? May we not have any article for which the topic is not 100% understood and agreed, such as Dark energy or Money supply?
  • Comment I didn't take time to express my thoughts well in the nomination. The problem is not that there is disagreement on what expression to use, it's more like "intellectual whimsy" is really a kind of vauge expression that can be used in different ways. Kind of like "natural beauty", "honest debate", "serious consideration", and others. I don't think WP would have articles on any of them. Northwestgnome (talk) 19:25, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The nomination is unclear and I don't think we should entertain such vague propositions here. Topics should be given serious consideration and honest debate rather than being deleted in an offhand fashion. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:17, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry I did such a poor job of writing the nomination. I still think that the article is original research on a topic that is not clearly notable. A well educated person can indulge in whimsy and they often do, true. However that does not make "intellectual whimsy" a topic in itself. I also mentioned that the sources do not use the expression "intellectual whimsy" (unless I missed it), but serve more as examples of it. Northwestgnome (talk) 16:15, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:30, 4 August 2009 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Intellectual_whimsy&oldid=1070195716"