|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Dump job article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|WikiProject Crime||(Rated Stub-class)|
|WikiProject Psychology||(Rated Stub-class)|
The proposed-deletion tag claims the accompanying article is "a misplaced dictionary entry".
I agree that it does begin with a dictdef. But i doubt that it was i who originated the notion that "A good article generally starts with a dictdef in the lead sent", and even if that is not a paraphrase of something i read, the fourth bullet point in the relevant MoS discussion
- If its subject is definable, then the first sentence should give a concise definition.
surely supports it as an approximation, and counsels care in throwing about the phrase "misplaced dictionary entry".
This article's prose is certainly more than a dictdef, as the 'graph
- Such cases often entail extra forensics difficulties. They also suggest to investigators theories that involve the death having occurred in the context of otherwise illegal or scandalous circumstances, panic, and/or awareness of either whoever left the body or whoever they seek to protect that the death is criminal; or some combination of these possibilities.
clearly is appropriate for the explication of the practice's significance (a plausibly encyclopedic topic) and not appropriate to a dictdef. (It's not obvious whether i knew that when i created the WP article 6½ years ago, but if not, i did a year later when i created the Wiktionary article and based the entry for the body sense (1.) on only the lead 'graph of the Police usage section.)
I think starting with a more justified discussion (which i lack the personal interest to join) of whether
- there is a clear topic, or
the article should be split
might well result in conclud
- either split would do violence to a complex web of interrelationships that would become less dispensible if the (6½-year-old undisputed but neglected) stub tag i included from the start were taken seriously.
IMO it would also dissipate the confusion between the existing article and a dictionary entry.
In any case, AfD can settle the matter better than the nom and i, so i remove the ProD tag, and leave the matter to colleagues, as long as this section is appropriately ref'd in any ensuing discussion.
--Jerzy•t 10:15 & 07:29, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
- If I thought the article's prose was certainly more than a dictionary entry, then I wouldn't have PROD'd it—I don't think I was casually throwing around the phrase "misplaced dictionary entry". I saw it as a dictionary entry with a rather verbose etymology. But maybe you're right: it is plausible that it deserves its own entry. Perhaps it is just a stub which can be metamorphosed into the next Fuck or Nigger. Anyway, I really didn't think the PROD would be controversial. Since it apparently is, I am not interested in fighting for deletion.
- Instead, I made some edits that I hope were helpful. Dump jobs are not my area of expertise, so I'll just do what I can to entice other editors to come and expand this. Cheers. Braincricket (talk) 13:21, 15 December 2011 (UTC)