483:, I reviewed the article's history and saw it hadn't been improved in the last several years. I looked for a good merge/redirect target and couldn't find one. I assumed that anyone interested in discussion would have commented on the Talk page when the prod came up, and neither the prod-remover nor anyone else since the article was created had contributed any discussion; I suspect (maybe I'm wrong?) that no one producing sources here would have seen a Talk page note if I'd left one, and if they
294:. I've now read the linked chapter (p. 249-253) and while it certainly helps, I'm still not convinced that it's enough to establish that there is sufficient material for an encyclopedia article on this topic; the article can't simply paraphase Darwin's observations. If there are other sources brought forth that can add something to the discussion, I'd be more convinced. (If there is no other such source, the idea that "Well, since Darwin did it, theoretically someone else
221:
649:
I did "check for sources," as I have stated; apparently I have higher standards than others, because I don't feel that a list of books that use a word is a list of good sources for discussing the meaning and context of the word (although I'm sure noting that some people think cats sneer is a valuable
474:
I wasn't going to reply, but this is really rude. There's nothing in either of those linked guidelines that would have changed my mind about nominating the article. I was being "bold" by trying to delete the article because I felt that it was unimprovable (and looking up a list of books that use the
193:
article looks like. I think it's unlikely there's much else to say about the concept of a "sneer". Prod was removed with the summary: "I think fiacial expressions are encyclopedic, so this can become a better article", which seems like poor logic to me (and the current text is virtually identical to
524:
Neither the article nor the topic qualifies as a deletable/mergeable dicdef. For the record, I think this particular nomination was an assualt (an incredibly rude act) on all those who took the time to start the article and all those who have contributed to it over a number of years. The excuse
551:
This is really ridiculous; if this AFD nom was "an assault", so is virtually every other AFD nom. The referenced "rule" makes no sense in this context, and little sense in any context (should I assume that every inadequate article is intentionally left inadequate? Should I avoid ever trying to
620:
There is enough information out there about every facial expression, to warrant articles for them. Please search for references before nominating something. And if you are willing to admit your mistake, you can just stop arguing with people, and withdraw your nomination.
650:
addition to the general knowledge). If the article had been in its current state when I came upon it, I probably would not have nominated it, but I still don't think it's a good article and I doubt it will be significantly expanded. As I said above, a merge/redirect to
437:. I'm all for removing dictionary entries masquerading as encyclopedia articles, but in this case it seems there are sufficient sources that discuss the facial expression itself (versus the word "sneer") to justify keeping this stub article.
487:
aware of the page, perhaps they could have improved it sometime in the last four years instead of now. Maybe I wasn't able to find sources that exist, but there's no call for that kind of condescension and assumption of bad faith.
707:
There have been a number of strange diversions here into attacking me personally instead of simply stating whether or not the article should be kept or deleted and why. But I'm not seeking to drag such tangents out further.
158:
366:
Well, it appears I can only see the abstract, not the article, so if you're expecting me to consider the article without basing it on the abstract, you'll have a problem there.
352:
I meant the article, not the abstract. But yes, sneer and facial expression of contempt are the same topic. A merge could go in the other direction as well or better though.
119:
673:
We should be able to express our opinions without heaping excessive criticism upon the nominator. The nomination was done in good faith, and that ought to be enough.
416:
591:...Yes? That's true? If you're referring to my request, I'm sure most people (clearly not all) would agree that this page is not the best venue for you to attack
552:
improve an article myself, so that someone else can make the improvement?) If you'd like to discuss this further please leave it on my Talk page instead of here.
393:
226:
152:
330:
The abstract doesn't use the word "sneer"; did you find this by looking for "expressions of contempt" or something like that? Actually, it makes me think that
689:
I don't think the point of "calling this a waste of time" was to critize the nominator personally. It was simply to fend off AfD's of other articles in
654:
seems the most logical outcome, but barring that I would rather delete the article than keep it, even if I'm the only one unconvinced it will flourish.
595:
for nominating the article, instead of discussing the merit of the article itself. I can respond better on my or your Talk page. But do as you wish.
759:
216:
become more than definition stubs should be deleted as dictionary definitions. This subject is easily capable of being expanded;
722:
The motivation for writing contemptible things was to play off the subject matter. After all, this AfD is about the concept of a
17:
449:
690:
49:
173:
140:
809:
452:. We find no discussion by the nominator on the article's talk page. He should please familiarise himself with
92:
87:
36:
808:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
465:
96:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
79:
298:
write four pages about parts of the world in which he's observed people sneer" is obviously inadequate.)
57:
134:
781:. You won't be leaving me with many options, how am I supposed to communicate? (Real reason: High EV)
764:
752:
731:
698:
582:
542:
357:
321:
713:
659:
600:
557:
493:
461:
424:
401:
371:
343:
303:
278:
199:
166:
130:
790:
231:
290:
Well, gee, pardon me for not being intimately familiar with the entire text of
Charles Darwin's
794:
769:
735:
717:
702:
677:
663:
644:
604:
586:
577:
AfD Nominations don't grant the nominators extra power or authority over any other editors. --
561:
546:
510:
497:
469:
441:
428:
405:
375:
361:
347:
325:
307:
282:
261:
243:
203:
61:
190:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
338:, a page I hadn't looked at before; that section seems already to be largely about sneering.
180:
622:
529:
sign of improvement goes against the second rule ever dreamed up for wikipedia policy. See
480:
457:
257:
239:
53:
727:
694:
578:
538:
353:
317:
709:
655:
596:
553:
489:
420:
397:
367:
339:
299:
274:
217:
195:
189:
As I said in my prod, this article could illustrate a dictionary definition for what a
782:
674:
507:
453:
438:
146:
751:- Per Simonm223. I think it's notable enough to bedeserving of an article anyway,
113:
253:
235:
252:
I have slightly expanded the article, adding information from Darwin's book. -
83:
475:
word "sneer" did not convince me that there was any worthwhile information
651:
335:
778:
313:
506:
out of line and easily supportable with the available information.
723:
331:
75:
67:
230:. So there is more to say about the subject, even if no one has
802:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
693:
and other stuby articles whose topics aren't dicdef's. --
273:
Recent edits by Ihcoyc bring article just over the bar.
530:
109:
105:
101:
48:. Nominated in good faith but no consensus to delete. (
165:
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
812:). No further edits should be made to this page.
777:Really? Remove the sneer. What's next, removing
460:so that he may waste less of our time. (*_*)
194:when the article was created four years ago).
417:list of Language-related deletion discussions
292:The Expression of Emotions in Man and Animals
227:The Expression of Emotions in Man and Animals
179:
8:
531:Knowledge:Historical archive/RulesToConsider
394:list of Science-related deletion discussions
411:
388:
415:: This debate has been included in the
392:: This debate has been included in the
334:should perhaps be merged/redirected to
525:that it's been around and there's no
7:
314:https://doi.org/10.1007%2FBF00992469
312:Of course there are other sources!
24:
502:I agree; this nomination was not
212:. Only those articles that can
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
535:Always leave something undone
795:23:09, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
770:15:27, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
62:00:23, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
766:(I am Czar of all Russias!)
736:20:15, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
718:19:40, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
703:18:01, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
691:Category:Facial expressions
678:17:47, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
664:17:22, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
652:Contempt#Facial expressions
645:16:41, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
605:19:40, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
587:17:50, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
562:15:01, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
547:23:27, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
511:22:46, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
498:18:27, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
470:17:52, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
442:12:04, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
429:21:31, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
406:21:31, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
376:20:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
362:19:06, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
348:18:34, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
336:Contempt#Facial expressions
326:07:27, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
308:16:00, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
283:15:38, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
262:14:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
244:14:19, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
204:13:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
829:
805:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
479:sneering). As for
44:The result was
450:Evidently notable
431:
408:
50:non-admin closure
820:
807:
787:
767:
762:
757:
641:
638:
635:
632:
629:
626:
184:
183:
169:
117:
99:
34:
828:
827:
823:
822:
821:
819:
818:
817:
816:
810:deletion review
803:
783:
765:
760:
755:Lord Spongefrog
753:
639:
636:
633:
630:
627:
624:
254:Smerdis of Tlön
236:Smerdis of Tlön
232:finished it yet
126:
90:
74:
71:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
826:
824:
815:
814:
798:
797:
772:
745:
744:
743:
742:
741:
740:
739:
738:
681:
680:
668:
667:
666:
614:
613:
612:
611:
610:
609:
608:
607:
567:
566:
565:
564:
518:
517:
516:
515:
514:
513:
462:Colonel Warden
444:
432:
409:
386:
385:
384:
383:
382:
381:
380:
379:
378:
285:
267:
266:
265:
264:
247:
246:
218:Charles Darwin
187:
186:
123:
70:
65:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
825:
813:
811:
806:
800:
799:
796:
792:
788:
786:
780:
776:
773:
771:
768:
763:
758:
756:
750:
747:
746:
737:
733:
729:
725:
721:
720:
719:
715:
711:
706:
705:
704:
700:
696:
692:
688:
685:
684:
683:
682:
679:
676:
672:
669:
665:
661:
657:
653:
648:
647:
646:
643:
642:
619:
616:
615:
606:
602:
598:
594:
590:
589:
588:
584:
580:
576:
573:
572:
571:
570:
569:
568:
563:
559:
555:
550:
549:
548:
544:
540:
536:
532:
528:
523:
520:
519:
512:
509:
505:
501:
500:
499:
495:
491:
486:
482:
478:
473:
472:
471:
467:
463:
459:
455:
451:
448:
445:
443:
440:
436:
433:
430:
426:
422:
418:
414:
410:
407:
403:
399:
395:
391:
387:
377:
373:
369:
365:
364:
363:
359:
355:
351:
350:
349:
345:
341:
337:
333:
329:
328:
327:
323:
319:
315:
311:
310:
309:
305:
301:
297:
293:
289:
286:
284:
280:
276:
272:
269:
268:
263:
259:
255:
251:
250:
249:
248:
245:
241:
237:
233:
229:
228:
223:
222:whole chapter
219:
215:
211:
208:
207:
206:
205:
201:
197:
192:
182:
178:
175:
172:
168:
164:
160:
157:
154:
151:
148:
145:
142:
139:
136:
132:
129:
128:Find sources:
124:
121:
115:
111:
107:
103:
98:
94:
89:
85:
81:
77:
73:
72:
69:
66:
64:
63:
59:
55:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
804:
801:
784:
774:
754:
748:
686:
670:
623:
617:
592:
574:
534:
526:
521:
503:
484:
476:
446:
434:
412:
389:
295:
291:
287:
270:
225:
213:
209:
188:
176:
170:
162:
155:
149:
143:
137:
127:
45:
43:
31:
28:
775:Strong Keep
504:prima facie
153:free images
54:Ron Ritzman
728:Firefly322
695:Firefly322
579:Firefly322
539:Firefly322
354:Narayanese
318:Narayanese
220:devoted a
191:WP:DICTDEF
710:Propaniac
656:Propaniac
597:Propaniac
554:Propaniac
490:Propaniac
481:WP:BEFORE
458:WP:BEFORE
421:Thryduulf
398:Thryduulf
368:Propaniac
340:Propaniac
316:for one.
300:Propaniac
275:Simonm223
271:Weak Keep
224:to it in
196:Propaniac
785:Nezzadar
761:(review)
120:View log
779:Sarcasm
687:Comment
575:Comment
288:Comment
159:WP refs
147:scholar
93:protect
88:history
675:Powers
527:recent
508:Powers
454:WP:BRD
439:Powers
131:Google
97:delete
791:speak
724:Sneer
640:Focus
477:about
332:Sneer
296:could
214:never
174:JSTOR
135:books
114:views
106:watch
102:links
76:Sneer
68:Sneer
16:<
749:Keep
732:talk
726:. --
714:talk
699:talk
671:Note
660:talk
618:Keep
601:talk
583:talk
558:talk
543:talk
537:. --
522:Keep
494:talk
485:were
466:talk
456:and
447:Keep
435:Keep
425:talk
413:Note
402:talk
390:Note
372:talk
358:talk
344:talk
322:talk
304:talk
279:talk
258:talk
240:talk
234:. -
210:Keep
200:talk
167:FENS
141:news
110:logs
84:talk
80:edit
58:talk
46:keep
181:TWL
118:– (
793:)
734:)
716:)
701:)
662:)
603:)
593:me
585:)
560:)
545:)
533::
496:)
468:)
427:)
419:.
404:)
396:.
374:)
360:)
346:)
324:)
306:)
281:)
260:)
242:)
202:)
161:)
112:|
108:|
104:|
100:|
95:|
91:|
86:|
82:|
60:)
52:)
789:(
730:(
712:(
697:(
658:(
637:m
634:a
631:e
628:r
625:D
599:(
581:(
556:(
541:(
492:(
464:(
423:(
400:(
370:(
356:(
342:(
320:(
302:(
277:(
256:(
238:(
198:(
185:)
177:·
171:·
163:·
156:·
150:·
144:·
138:·
133:(
125:(
122:)
116:)
78:(
56:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.