Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Verbosity

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. (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:03, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Verbosity

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

This is a dictionary definition. The whole article is just a list of examples of or synonyms for verbosity; there's nothing about this that actually makes it an encyclopedia article. — Scott • talk 16:05, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with the nomination. This article reads like an extended dictionary definition that's followed by a series of loosely-connected anecdotes. It seems more like a top ten list from Cracked.com than an encyclopedia article. Even if the topic were notable and encyclopedic, the article would probably need a complete rewrite. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:34, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google Scholar shows over 25,000 hits for "verbosity"; the first few pages of hits shows dozens of papers where verbosity is the main topic. Most of these papers are on the topic of the occurrence of verbosity in the conversation of older people; it is an active topic in gerontology and cognitive psychology. Verbosity is also an important topic in writing style; most style guides I have seen mention it. This is a highly notable topic. The article itself could use development of the psychological aspect and more neutrality in the style section. Many short paragraphs make the prose seem disjoined. But these are all surmountable problems of ordinary editing, per WP:SURMOUNTABLE. A highly notable topic and surmountable article problems suggest keeping the article. --Mark viking (talk) 21:19, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Titles of papers like "Aging, Inhibition, and Verbosity", "Measurement and correlates of verbosity in elderly people", "Off-target verbosity evokes negative stereotypes of older adults", "Verbosity and emotion recognition in older adults", and "Paucity vs. verbosity: Another analysis of right hemisphere communication deficits" make it obvious that verbosity is merely a characteristic being used as a measurement in various experimental or assessment contexts, not the subject of the papers per se. Attempting to conjoin them into a topic would be synthesis. — Scott • talk 22:02, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Mark viking (and Scott). The article titles convince me that this should be kept and fixed, even on dark and stormy nights when the rain falls in torrents — except at occasional intervals, when it is checked by a violent gust of wind which sweeps up the streets (for it is in Wikipedia that our discussion lies). A perfunctory search turns up:

Stanislav Andreski makes a "scathing indictment of the 'pretentious nebulous verbosity' endemic in the modern social sciences in his classic work Social Sciences as Sorcery (1972)."
Plain English states "An inquiry into the 2005 London bombings ... found that verbosity can lead to misunderstandings that could cost lives."Clarityfiend (talk) 22:21, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is manifestly not a dictionary definition. Much of the content is usage advice, which itself may conflict with WP:NOTGUIDE, but to say, "This is a dictionary definition" is to fundamentally misunderstand the linked policy page. The second paragraph of the policy states, "Wikipedia articles should begin with a good definition, but they should provide other types of information about that topic as well." Clearly, this article does that. Furthermore, the list of synonyms for verbosity also accords with that policy (viz. synonyms should be merged). That is not to say that this approaches the standard of a good article, but its problems are eminently surmountable, as Mark viking notes. Cnilep (talk) 01:30, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. DGG ( talk ) 05:26, 19 April 2014 (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.