Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pet peeve

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 no consensus for now. Yes, I tend to agree the article is mainly a dictionary definition when you remove the wide generalizations. Then again, the article is better referenced than it was before this process. I guess my main problem with the article is that it is such a pedestrian topic that I would never touch it, or care whether or not it gets deleted (which is why I'm your guy to close this, I guess.)

As to the argument between Pan Dan and FrozenPurpleCube (the battle of the funky usernames) I generally think that a "pet peeve" is in the eye of the beholder. To me the term implies a very specific irritation that one person has, which is not likely to piss off many other people. I think Pan Dan thinks something similar, hence his disagreement with the sources' more general usages of the term. The subjective use of the term itself is probably the biggest problem with this article's continuing existence, but the references are the only thing we have to go off of as far as how the term is used. (Is the term used differently regionally? Put that in the article!) For the next debate, the subjective nature of the term itself should be considered more carefully. Grandmasterka 09:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pet peeve

Nomination for deletion Delete as dictionary definition with original research ("road rage is caused by pet peeves" (WP:DICDEF, WP:OR). Transwiki if people feel like it. Bwithh 00:36, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep there may be things worth removing, though I'm doubtful that the research is as original as you think, but this article is a lot more than a dictionary definition. I am going to add some sources to the page though. FrozenPurpleCube 00:47, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, apparently the American mental health establishment considers road rage to be caused by a serious disorder of the brain. Bwithh 01:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

And apparently road rage is itself a pet peeve. [1] FrozenPurpleCube 01:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - already exists at wikitionary: wikt:pet peeve, and there is currently nothing else in the article that isn't original research. If FrozenPurpleCube can provide sources in the article I'll possibly change my mind. Yomangani^talk 00:56, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there were sources there already actually, but I've added some more. FrozenPurpleCube 01:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Whoever's looking for sources, please note that they must come from authoritative sources (none of the ones so far mentioned seem to have this quality. See WP:RS. ) and they must show encyclopedic substance beyond the dictionary definition (none of the sources so far do this either) Bwithh 01:15, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, just so you know, some of the sources themselves cite the Oxford English Dictionary. I'd prefer to cite that, but as I don't own a copy at home, and I'm not going to pay for access to the site, I've gone as far as I can. FrozenPurpleCube 01:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Nice, but The main point of the nom is that the article is a dictionary definition Bwithh 13:51, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm unconvinced. Simply saying "Pet Peeve means something that is a personal irritant" would be a straight dicdef. This article goes further than that. Could you please explain exactly what you would need to say "Oh, this is more than a dicdef" ? Otherwise, I frankly don't know how to talk to you about this. (Especially since I don't consider WP:DICDEF a useful description as to policy. FrozenPurpleCube 14:40, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• Solid keep It could be expanded, like those old John Caldwell "Pet Peeves" articles in Mad Magazine where the "peeves" were dragonlike monsters based on some sort of visual pun. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:15, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

That's suitable for the Caldwell article but I don't see how it would make this article more substantive. Puns can be made, visually or not, on just about any dictionary definition Bwithh 13:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, potential for expansion. Article is at least more than a dicdef. --Terence Ong _{(T | C)} 01:32, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Once you get rid of the original research from the article, all that's left is a dicdef. Remember that dictionaries talk about the origins of words too. Bwithh 13:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. P.B. Pilhet / Talk 03:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep Article is marginally better than a dicdef, and seems to have the potential to grow into more. --Hyperbole 05:29, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, article has potential to grow beyond a stub. Verifiable? Yes. Notable? Yes. Potential for growth? Yes. Obvious keep, IMHO. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 10:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, the term is notable, and there is enough material to deserve an article. JIP | Talk 13:02, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Bwithh has said it all, in his nom and responses. Every sentence in the article is either dicdef material, trivial OR, or unsupported OR. Every reference in the article either is not reliable, or uses "pet peeve" rather than discusses its use, or discusses its etymology--thus making "pet peeve" an excellent candidate for a dictionary entry (which it is) but a poor candidate for an encyclopedia entry. Pan Dan 14:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Um, exactly what's not reliable about The Word Detective? It may not be clear from a quick read, but if you look on his site, he's actually got three published books on Words as well as a syndicated newspaper column. FrozenPurpleCube 14:40, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

That source falls into the "discusses its etymology" category (see my comment above). It's almost entirely a rather expansive discussion of the meaning and etymology of "peeve" (and we already have articles on etymology in general and back-formation in particular). There's one sentence about when "pet peeve" first appeared in print. All of this is dictionary material. The final sentence speculating about why "pet peeve" became popular--whatever the merits of that explanation--is not substantive enough to justify an encyclopedia entry. Pan Dan 15:30, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

So, you agree it's a reliable source, right? But honeslty, I'm just not seeing why you have a problem with this entry. Could you explain why etymology isn't useful for Wikipedia? What would you ned to change your vote? FrozenPurpleCube 16:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

First, this isn't a vote. It's not me you have to convince, it's the closing admin! But I suppose if there were reliable non-trivial sources that discuss either pet peeves themselves (like some of the sources for "road rage" at Road rage or some of the articles here), or that discuss the use of the term "pet peeve," then I would change my opinion. As to whether the Word Detective blurb is a reliable source: in my view its content can't justify keeping the article, so there's no point in me committing to an opinion on whether it's reliable. As for your comment on etymology, that's what dictionaries are for. I note that using your reasoning we could have a Wikipedia entry for every single word whose etymology is known. Pan Dan 00:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but I can't talk with an admin who hasn't decided to act yet, but I can interact with you. Which might in turn influence that theoretical admin's action in the future. If you want to ask whether there are some non-trivial sources on pet peeves, well, I looked at scholar.google.com and I found a lot of articles that I would say are about pet peeves. Like [2] which describes a study that set out to find student's pet peeves. (Or the one from an insurance company that's already on the page). Plus this page [3] indicates that the authors of that book did a study on it. And yes, where it is important or interesting, a given phrase or term might well deserve an entry with its etymology. In this case, it is more than just saying "Pet Peeve means a personal irritation" . Check the English-language idioms category for lots more similar articles. FrozenPurpleCube 01:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The references you link to are about general annoyances, not pet peeves, which by definition are peculiar to individuals. The first ref misapplies the term "pet peeve," and the second doesn't use it at all (at least not in the title, which is all I can see). So the contents of both of these fine sources could not support Pet peeve (but could go into Wikipedia's article on Annoyance once it is shown that they got some peer review to show that they're not trivial or wacko). Now, if some psychologist dude, for example, conducted similar studies or analyses of actual pet peeves (with peer review), then that's the sort of thing you could build an encyclopedia article on. Pan Dan 02:10, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The refences I cited specifically said they were looking for pet peeves, for example, the insurance company looked for people's pet peeves about driving, and the APA article also described their study that way. And the author of this [4]]who is actually a Ph. D. in Social Psychology. I don't know if she got any peer review, but it was published by the Yale Press, so I'm inclined to give it the benefit of the doubt. Sure, I'd love more context, but as I don't have the book at home, I'll just have to go with the page that google has, which says among other things "Because my students and I were interested in the actual content of people's pet peeves and because most....we conducted a study on pet peeves in close relationships. Now that you bring up Annoyance though, I don't see how that article is particularly different from this one. I could be convinced that these two should be combined. They don't seem different enough. FrozenPurpleCube 02:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

"The references...specifically said...pet peeves"--My point above was that those folks are misapplying the term. They meant general annoyances, not pet peeves. As to the book you cited, again, I said above that there's no indication that it's about pet peeves. As to Annoyance being problematic, yes, there is some stuff about etymology of the word "annoyance" in the first sentence of that article that perhaps doesn't belong, but most of that article is about the concept of annoyance in psychology--not the word. And it's cited. That material certainly does belong in Wikipedia. Taking a closer look at that article, I see that some of the material there is uncited and possibly OR, which, yes, is a problem. As to combining the two articles: some of Annoyance is encyclopedic, but nothing in Pet peeve is, so there's nothing to combine. Pan Dan 03:19, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

You claim they are misapplying the term. Well, that's a matter of disagreement, but feel free to make an argument as to why, because I just don't understand what you're talking about. And the book doesn't have to be entirely about pet peeves to indicate that it treated the subject of pet peeves with specificity, as it does on that page which I found through google. It also mentioned some other books on that page. Yes, I suppose you could argue that Pet Peeves is part of the larger subject of annoyances, but even if we did, it is still a specific word with its own origins, which people might well search for. But hey, I could be amenable with treating the subject of pet peeves in the Annoyance article, if that's what you want to propose. But we'd still need to define pet peeve and link back to annoyance, if only because the Piers Anthony book isn't going anywhere, and I really don't feel comfortable with that article not having a disambig. Personally, I think that it should be moved to a different namespace, but that's another issue. FrozenPurpleCube 03:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I have bolded my explanation above of the difference between pet peeves and annoyances. "[D]reary, monotone lecturing" (from your ref #1) and being "teased, nagged, betrayed, or lied to" (ref #2) are things that annoy lots of people--they're not pet peeves. (The authors wanted to use the term "pet peeves," I suppose, because of the nifty alliteration referred to at Word Detective--it gets the reader's attention.) An example of a true pet peeve, by contrast, would be "People who type 'what-up!'" at [5] (a ref in the nominated article). Because pet peeves are peculiar to individuals, something people talk about to shoot the breeze at internet forums, I doubt that anyone of any importance has undertaken a serious study of them. So, again, I don't think there's any non-trivial, non-OR way to "treat the subject of pet peeves in the Annoyance article," as you suggest, or in the article under discussion. Pan Dan 17:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'm afraid your differentiation isn't quite as solid as you think it is, as it seems to me, that many uses of pet peeve are not making that distiction. Uses that a bit more notable than you, such as an insurance research group and a scholar published by Yale. But if you think the point you make is well-supported by other sources, (or IOW, not OR on your part) it would seem to make for good content to add to the article. Perhaps it might qualify as a pet peeve itself. FrozenPurpleCube 02:55, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

My distinction isn't OR, it's based on the definition of pet peeve. But even assuming that the distinction isn't there, your sources discuss examples of pet peeves, not the overall phenomenon itself, and as such are not particularly strong to build an article on (whether an article on pet peeves or one on annoyances--note that Annoyance mainly discusses the overall psychological phenomenon, not examples of annoyances). Pan Dan 19:20, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

No, it's based on what you feel the meaning of the word is, which may be true, perhaps, but if nobody has written about it, may make it OR. See Decimate and Catachresis for more on that problem. At least some people have written about that. (In fact, it's a common pet peeve). Not as bad as when they use it as a malapropism Still, if people are collating data on examples of pet peeves, writing news paper coloumns and even books on them, and otherwise talking about the issue, I think it makes it notable. Not that I think we should have List of Pet peeves mind you, as I agree, that would be ugly and unmaintainable. But sourcable material, that gets on CNN? Very much worth including. FrozenPurpleCube 00:52, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete dictdef. Eusebeus 15:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, WP:WINAD, per nom. Sandstein 16:41, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
• {{wi}}. Recury 16:43, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete dictdef DCEdwards1966 19:02, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
• OMG random meme keep The whole idea of pet peeves exceeds a dictionary definition, and I see no debate over how notable it is. Concepts like this, bonked, etc., hold enough water to merit their own article. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 22:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

1) "pet peeves" are not a meme, unless you're using some kind of uselessly so-broad-it-includes-everything definition of meme 2) the "bonked" article you link to is primarily about a physiological condition and the slang sexual dicdef is only mentioned in passing. I don't see how pet peeve is comparable or perhaps you're suggesting a new related medical condition? Bwithh 01:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The term "pet-peeve" itself may not be a meme, but certain pet-peeves themselves become memes, i.e. the way a person holds a food utensil or the way some sort of clothing is worn. "Bonked" is related to "pet peeves" because it is the same sort of human condition, one that hinders performance. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 01:24, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep notable term, has expanded beyond a simple dictionary definition. Ultra-Loser ^{Talk | BT sites} 01:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Bwithh: Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep this is more than a dicdef. There is potential for expansion, such as how the term came about? common pet peeves? Why do people find other people's certain behavior annoying? Explain pet peeves as a social and psychological phenomenon, etc. A google book search turns up 6000+ books that mention pet peeves [6] While some may just be passing mentions, others discuss pet peeves as a phenomenon, in more depth than a dicdef. --Aude (talk) 19:02, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

No-one is denying that the phrase is widely used. The point here is the phrase simply means "a habitual annoyance" and there's not much to say beyond that. If there specific authoritative works discussing pet peeves as a phenomenon with distinct features in-depth, than please point them out. If these turn out to be just studies of "why people are annoyed" or "common annoyances", then a redirect/partial merge to annoyance is in order. Bwithh 01:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

• 'Delete or transwiki; although this is comprensive coverage of a notable topic, it's still in the realm of a dictionary definition. There's nothing encyclopedic here. Vectro 04:42, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as a very long, but neverthless, dictdef. SkerHawx 22:38, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete dictdef. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:39, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Aude. Markovich292 03:34, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

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.