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.
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
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
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
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.