Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stupidity

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 keep. -- Cirt (talk) 00:14, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stupidity

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

Dictionary definition, not an encyclopedia article. Wtshymanski (talk) 16:34, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it gives uses and varied sources, which distinguishes it from a WP:DICDEF. Bearian (talk) 19:16, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep WP:SNOW. This article has existed since 2004. While it needs work and better references, it is clearly more than just a dictionary definition. SnottyWong ^speak 19:25, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment by nominator. Just because it's old, doesn't mean it can't be deleted. --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:31, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - But without stupidity would Wikipedia still be Wikipedia? ;-) Steve Dufour (talk) 23:46, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: Subject clearly notable, and the less-than-perfect state of the article is not a reason for deletion. Favonian (talk) 19:28, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
strong delete. Per the nom, this is a dictionary definition. The article simply applies the definition to several topics. The same could be done with any noun in the English language.173.8.11.157 (talk) 19:46, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep I respect the nominator's view of the current sorry condition of the article (which has been on my watchlist for a while), but I see other editors are jumping to the task of adding sources, and I expect to do so as well. The article is already more than a dictionary definition, and it is turning into a detailed discussion of the reliable secondary literature on stupidity, which is surprisingly vast. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 23:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Somebody went crazy with the flags on this one... This is pretty clearly an article that COULD be expanded into a really nice piece of work. We consider intelligence worthy of inclusion, this is merely the flipside of that concept... Carrite (talk) 01:53, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's a highly poorly written article as of now. But it's still notable, certainly. I see no reason why sources could not be found in the future to fix it. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 03:00, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because the whole concept is so vague, besides the article being mainly about the word against WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. There are articles on Human intelligence, I am sure, where the concept would be better covered. Example to show the how vague the word is: The Watergate scandal was very stupid, yet Richard Nixon was on the very high end of the IQ scale.Steve Dufour (talk) 21:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. You just can't have Wikipedia without stupidity. Reasonably notable concept, although not a very focused article. Herostratus (talk) 02:51, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how it can be focused. Intelligence is a definate thing that can be discussed. Stupidity is a word that people use to mean lack of intelligence. It can apply to anything from a rock to President Nixon. Steve Dufour (talk) 11:27, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. None of the subsections (excluding etymology) would be found in a dictionary definition. Agree that the article isn't very good, but it definitely has encyclopedic content. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 17:57, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep More than a dictionary definition, potential for quite a nice article. Chzz ► 07:23, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Snotty Wong and Chzz Sandcat01 (talk) 17:58, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Either delete or rework the article to actually be about lack of intelligence. Right now large segments of the "article" are about the word stupidity, not about stupidity itself, and thus is dictionary material. --Yair rand (talk) 20:27, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This one's a no-brainer. ... Uh, does that mean I should !vote delete or keep ...? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 22:37, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and continue to improve or redirect to Deletionism. --192.150.115.150 (talk) 15:58, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Human intelligence. This is notable, but pure topic duplication. I can't see how being stupid is different to being unintelligent - they are synonyms. Claritas § 16:18, 31 August 2010 (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.