Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boasting

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. Per the improvements made since being nominated. Any merger or such discussion can be held on the talk page. (non-admin closure) Ya sh ! 00:38, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Boasting

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

Ivanvector suggestion is this is a three sentence dictionary definition. There are more words in hatnotes than in the article. Delete along with the 117 Neelix Redirects at RfD. [1] Legacypac (talk) 22:24, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is a good example of "Wikipedia is not a dictionary". Sundayclose (talk)
Redirect to hubris - yes, I did suggest deletion, however I then realized that this has numerous incoming links (not counting the redirects) since "boasting" is possibly one name for a serious wrong in many mainstream religions. However, this tiny article is not helpful to readers. I've asked WikiProject Psychology to weigh in as perhaps there is a better target than what I've suggested. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:51, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the incoming wikilinks can be broken easily? Legacypac (talk) 22:57, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that's true, they can. But I have concerns about just deleting a page which currently gets 40-60 hits per day without leaving something (a redirect? a dab page?) in its place. Even if it's a soft redirect to wiktionary, but I personally don't like those. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 23:03, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Clearly more than a dictionary definition - it does have six cites. Shortage of text is not in itself a reason for deletion, maybe there is room for expansion anyway. I don't agree with redirecting somewhere else. Hubris for example is a fairly broad conceptual attitude akin to narcissism, approximately being overconfident, but that could just mean for example making rash decisions. Boasting is a more narrow word relating to individual incidents of showing off.--Penbat (talk) 23:08, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've moved some of the stuff in the See also section into the main body of the article. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:22, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Both of you are probably right. I'm here on the premise that boasting can't be expanded into a proper article beyond the dictionary definition because it would duplicate an existing topic, but I'll be happy to be proven wrong on that point. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 01:38, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Millon's Handbook of Psychology, Personality and Social Psychology discuses Boasting as one component of self-presentation. We have an article on self-presentation entitled Impression management. Placed in this context, the term has meaning beyond a that of the dictionary. Merging Boasting with Impression management is another possible option. It could be added to: Impression_management#Motives_and_strategies - Wiki-psyc (talk) 12:18, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note - many (72) of the incoming links are related to Template:Narcissism and will drop if the template in modified - Wiki-psyc (talk) 12:40, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I cant think of any suitable merges or redirects, impression management is a mile away from boasting which could well be spontaneous.--Penbat (talk) 15:34, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Whether we merge of not (I don't have strong feeling either way), the context of self-presentation and "Boasting" are encyclopedic. Self-presentation is largely subconscious and spontaneous. Million discusses how we try to optimize our self presentation by balancing between boasting and discrediting ourselves (via excessive self promotion or being caught and being proven wrong). He also speaks to our often limited ability to perceive how our efforts impact our acceptance and likeability by others. - Wiki-psyc (talk) 16:57, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment we can all find 10 cites for any dictionary word. I like that redirect idea. Better to send people to an article where they can learn something rather then give a dictionary definition any english speaking 6 year old knows. Legacypac (talk) 12:35, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I had already covered that point. It has six cites and has expansion potential.--Penbat (talk) 15:34, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:46, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit concerned that right now it reads as a bit of WP:COAT to attack Trump, who is the only living person cited to have been notably boastful. (oh, and BTW, he's notably litigious, too). Though of course that in itself is not a reason to delete. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:49, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just added that in an attempt to expand the article per above. Saw the list of fiction characters and the Donald popped into mind as the best example of a real person. Maybe others will add more to the article, cause beyond the dictionary definition you pretty much need to go to examples. Legacypac (talk) 18:57, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do not redirect to hubris I for one wouldn't support a redirect to hubris, as suggested above. They're not quite the same, imo. One is a state of mind -- "extreme pride or self-confidence" -- with its roots in classical tragedy. The other, boasting, is a ~~verbal~~ behaviour (striking thru verbal as one can boast in print). One can suffer from hubris and not feel the need to boast. And I think one could outwardly boast as a means to cover for insecurity, and so not suffer from extreme self-confidence. Anyway, that particular redirect would not work, far as I can see. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:16, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Merge if convenient, or improve, or just leave it alone. The "issues" named in the submission have been addressed, and it was a matter of a few minutes' work, it would actually have been easier for the submitter to fix the article than to propose it for deletion. --dab (𒁳) 20:11, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Article updated The consensus appears to be KEEP but IMPROVE. I added some basic structure to this article and to Impression_management article to help with this. I'm not sure the Donald Trump reference should be in this article, but I'll defer that decision to the active editors on this article. Wiki-psyc (talk) 22:16, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which also gives me a way to add a psychology category. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:28, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Looks like the improvements since nomination have fixed any WP:DICDEF issues. It needs work, but considerably better now and certainly meets WP:GNG. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:41, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - thank you all for entertaining the discussion and helping to improve the article. As expanded, the article doesn't resolve my concern that this is not a distinct encyclopedic topic rather than simply a list of examples supporting a dictionary definition, but there doesn't seem to be anything better to do with it than what's been done, and the intricate technicalities distinguishing psychology concepts are well outside my area of expertise. I've struck my !vote above but I'm leaving this one as a neutral statement. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:53, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Penbat's reasoning. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:16, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We have lots of articles about concepts of human feelings and behaviors, and the nominator has not enunciated a good reason for deleting this one. Bearian (talk) 17:42, 17 November 2015 (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.