Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interrupt (verb)

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:09, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interrupt (verb)

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This is little more than an expanded dictdef. I don't see how it can ever become a valid article. Declined PROD. DES ^(talk) 00:44, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. DES ^(talk) 00:45, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Merge to a topic related to psychology/behavior, and/or communication. Perhaps something in the ADHD field. I started this page and thought it would be notable enough to stay. But yet I admit it does read more like a dictionary entry. The word interrupt is very common and the verb part should have some sort of disambiguation from its primary subject, located here: interrupt, which deals with computer technology, along with its own category. I believe people would search the verb, like I did, and if there was no page on this, they would have to go to Wiktionary, which can be inconvenient if they are already here. We have several words that may be close to dictionary definitions, as seen here: Category:English words. I have listed sources on the talk page that could turn this article around into something more encyclopedic, as opposed to a dictionary definition. Tinton5 (talk) 00:56, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. There's nothing worth saving here. If a psychology or communication oriented interruption is encyclopedic, it would have to go under a different title anyway. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:49, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, because current title and content are unsuitable for redirect or article. (Context for tinton: Unless a decent amount of reliable sources are available (that are discussing the word itself) then it's simply impossible to ever make it into (even a short) Featured article (what everything is essentially striving for). There are a few words that qualify, but not many.

But we could use either a hatnote pointing (somewhere?), or just a Wiktionary template (now added), at Interrupt . ('interruption' redirects there).

Where could we disambiguate it to? What is an 'interruption', a rhetorical technique? "Verbal communication" just redirects to linguistics, so that's no good. Maybe something in Category:Oral communication? (catmain links to a tiny 1-paragraph-subsection at Communication#Oral_communication so that's no good). Any suggestions? -- Quiddity (talk) 04:01, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If there were enough to create an article, IMO it would belong at "interruption". As to the point above about Category:English words, some of those should probably be deleted also, don't argue WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. But many of them are cases where a word or phrase has actually gotten sufficient attention to be notable of itself, such as the article about the controversies over the use of "niggardly". DES ^(talk) 14:25, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean a Disambig. page or just create a page called that? I think Quiddity is on to something. I do favor the idea of adding a note, directing the word someplace or just have a brief mention in a particular article related to oral communication/or etiquette/social behavior/conversation, etc. Tinton5 (talk) 20:11, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention that the word Interruption currently redirects to Interrupt, which deals with computer software. If we created a DAB page with the word "interruption" the following entries would be listed:

and then have the content related to the verb added in someplace. Thoughts? Tinton5 (talk) 20:16, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@DES: Absolutely. I wasn't suggesting that we should have an article about interruptions, I was hoping to find an existing article that has (or would reasonably include) a sub-section dealing with interruptions (citing any existing studies concerning their usage in verbal communication). If such a ___location exists, then we would simply add to the hatnote at Interrupt, something along the lines of:

"This article is about computer interrupts. For interruptions in verbal communication, see [?x?]. For the study of the effect of disruptions on job performance, see Interruption science."

@Tinton: A Disambig page at interruption is definitely valid. I'll make one now. But we still need to figure out where the entry discussing communication-interruptions would point the reader to. (and if there is no appropriate article, then all we can do is use a Wiktionary template.) -- Quiddity (talk) 00:09, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As far as interruptions in conversations are involved, the natural spot to find that treated is in Conversation analysis, in which it is a much studied topic. Strangely enough, our article fails to spend a single word on it; there really ought to be a section on interruptions there. If someone has time to do s.t. about it (I don't), a much cited classical study on the influence of sex roles on interrupting behaviour is the one by Zimmerman and West (1975), and a whole chapter (Chapter 7: Who's Interrupting: Issues of Dominance and Control) is spent on the topic in the well-known and popular 1990 book You Just Don't Understand: Women and Men in Conversation by Deborah Tannen. There is much more material. Not all of it is directly related to sex roles; see e.g. Talbot (1992).
- Don H. Zimmerman and Candace West (1975). "Sex roles, interruptions and silences in conversation". Language and Sex: Difference and Dominance. Newbury House. pp. 105–129. ISBN 0-88377-043-1.
- Mary Talbot (November 1992). "'I wish you'd stop interrupting me!': Interruptions and asymmetries in speakers-rights in equal encounters". Journal of Pragmatics. 18 (5): 451–466. doi:10.1016/0378-2166(92)90084-O.

--Lambiam 01:44, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We neither need lexical entries in Wikipedia for common English words, nor even soft redirects for them to Wikitionary. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:32, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ignore this comment since the user has been hounding me several times. Did you even look at Category:Redirects to Wiktionary? There are over a thousand entries. I don't see what the problem is. Tinton5 (talk) 18:09, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tinton, that user is an admin, an OTRS assistant (he/she helps answer emails sent to Wikimedia), and has worked as a lexicographer. I would suggest great caution, in making assumptions, (we all do it, constantly, as human pattern perceivers. but don't trust your assumptions too strongly ;) By which I mean, kudpung probably has purely good intentions, but there might have been some miscommunications (boyohboy do we have a lot of those around here).

That said, Kudpung could (should) have read the responses above, a bit more closely, (eg the details from Lambiam), before replying to this thread. "Keep or redirect" aren't good options, as we've determined already - we've moved on to discussing hatnotes, and potential locations that the topic would actually belong. -- Quiddity (talk) 00:27, 12 August 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.