Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Facepalm (3rd nomination)

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. (non-admin closure) HurricaneFan 25 00:21, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Facepalm

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

No reliable sources for the article exist, nor are any used. CHEEZBurger, Urban Dictionary and Know Your Meme are NOT reliable sources. An entry on the OED exists, but so what, so do lots of other words, I wasn't aware of any mergers between Wikipedia and Wiktionary... because if a dictionary entry exists, send it to Wiktionary. Arguments on the basis of the existance of an OED entry do not take into account the fact that Wikipedia is not a dictionary.

This article does not meet the GNG, it lacks significant coverage, fails to assert reliability, lacks secondary sources that are reliable and no presumption for inclusion exists. The article is not applicable for criteria 2 or 3 of the guideline for web content, however, it has not been the subject of non-trivial published works and as such fails to meet criterion 1 and the notability guideline for web content. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 7:01pm • 09:01, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And now people are !voting keep wholesale due to the addition of trivial sources which do not and fail to assert the web-cultural importance. The references inserted pertain to the gesture's usage, not about WHY it's important, nor about it's etymology or anything else of some significance. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 4:22pm • 06:22, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:33, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Facepalm —Tom Morris (talk) 12:33, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, I've found one vaguely reliable source: 'Bigotgate' goes viral as UK PM says *facepalm* on the CNN UK Election Blog. The blog post is attribtued to CNN Supervising Producer, Linnie Rawlinson (thus negating WP:SPS concerns). This isn't enough to establish notability nor does it negate the fact that Wiktionary may be the correct place for the word if the concept isn't notable, but is a pretty reliable source that uses the term. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:50, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I didn't expect to see this back here so soon after my nomination went down in flames, but the nominator is correct in that notability has yet to be established. I've tried in the intervening weeks to find reliable sources, but I have been unsuccessful. This article makes my eyes bleed.--~T P W 12:50, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Pacifier gesture per source that was introduced. Excellent job on the rewrite; I didn't think it was possible to make this encyclopedic; once we move the page it will be.--~T P W 18:25, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I actually considered that while working up the rewrite. However, "pacifier gesture" is even less widely attested than "facepalm" -- it appears to be a unique coining by the Body Language Institute. I want to assume that there was some term used to describe this gesture prior to the introduction of "facepalm" circa 2008, because the gesture itself is attested from antiquity (and, if anything, the article still needs more historical discussion). So far, there doesn't seem to be, but I'm not done poking around quite yet. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 18:35, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, keep as it has been twice before Askadaleia (talk) 13:20, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it generally better to use policy-based arguments that discuss the article, rather than claim that the fact that the article has not been deleted is a sufficient rationale for keeping it?--~T P W 13:40, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article was deleted at first AFD. Mattg82 (talk) 13:49, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can someone rape the other eight or nine interwikis for extra sourcing? Lugnuts (talk) 14:15, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Give me a little bit. I'll have a rewrite with better quality sourcing up later today. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:39, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...and done. This isn't going to be featured content by a large margin, but at least the sourcing and notability concerns should be taken care of. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:49, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Still seems like a dictionary definition. Edison (talk) 17:57, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep After rewrite, is far more than a dictionary definition. The action is placed in a broader cultural context beyond just being a recent Internet meme. Kansan (talk) 17:59, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~~Rename to 'Submissive gesture'~~ - neither Facepalm nor pacifier/pacifying gesture seem to have much going for them, but ethology (behavior science) has talked of submissive gestures for years (as you can see if you search Wikipedia for the term, let alone Google). Then there will be a) numerous other WP articles to link to and learn from, b) scores of solid citations, and c) a whole raft of interesting submissive gestures to list and describe, in many different species, including H. sapiens. Actually I'm kind of surprised there isn't an article on it already. Hmm, could write one... Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:05, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...maybe will have to, as not sure 'Facepalm' fits neatly into submissive really, suspect it's an overlap. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:08, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly think these are different topics. A facepalm can be a submissive gesture, but submissive gesture is a fairly expansive category of body language with quite a bit written about it; it deserves separate coverage. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:33, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Plenty of secondary sources available in scholarly sources, as well as discussion in books, and also news media sources. — Cirt (talk) 20:01, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well sourced already and has its own OED entry. Deserves separate coverage as suggested by Cirt. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:57, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sourcing appears to be adequate as shown by others above. Tarc (talk) 23:05, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Cirt and others. Adequate sources have been provided that establish notability. It's also starting to look awfully snowy. Cyrus Andiron 19:14, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see that there are better sources now and many feel it is a good page to have. ReginaldTQ (talk) 19:27, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are more than enough sufficient sources out that confirm that facepalm is more than a dictionary definition. --Effer^AKS 03:44, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While it could use more historical perspective, that is not grounds for deletion. Also, this article actually has sources now. Chris857 (talk) 03:04, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone actually bothered to check the relevance of the inserted references? A reference on the end of each of the purported uses does not assert notability whatsoever as no one has bothered to explain the gesture's web-cultural significance. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 4:25pm • 06:25, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - let us use common sense, folks. It's clear this is sourceable, and efforts to delete this have been rejected repeatedly. Bearian (talk) 19:29, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As per Bearian. FM [ talk to me | show contributions ] 22:09, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It ended as keep on 18 September 2011. And I agree this should be common sense. The gesture exist and it should be covered. Dream Focus 23:48, 29 November 2011 (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.