Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zeitgeist: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→Zeitgeist: add |
→Zeitgeist: keep |
||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
* Perhaps this text could be combined with the disambig? [[User:IRWolfie-|IRWolfie-]] ([[User talk:IRWolfie-|talk]]) 01:48, 14 October 2012 (UTC) |
* Perhaps this text could be combined with the disambig? [[User:IRWolfie-|IRWolfie-]] ([[User talk:IRWolfie-|talk]]) 01:48, 14 October 2012 (UTC) |
||
*{{ec}} '''Keep''' We have nineteen articles on the [[Zeitgeist (disambiguation)]] page, and editors want to turn [[Zeitgeist]] into a red link? There is no case for deletion of either the title or the edit history, and any other issues are a matter for ordinary editing, not AfD discussion. [[User:Unscintillating|Unscintillating]] ([[User talk:Unscintillating|talk]]) 01:49, 14 October 2012 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 01:49, 14 October 2012
- Zeitgeist (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This is not an encyclopedia article. It has only one source, a dictionary, and that is exactly where this content belongs: a dictionary. There is nothing encyclopedic to say about this topic. Let us review: this article consists of a pronunciation, a translation (since it is a loanword) to English, a brief definition, and a sentence of etymology. That's it. All of those components are elements of a dictionary entry, not a comprehensive encyclopedia article. Powers T 14:08, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - got to agree, it is only a dictionary definition here so falls into WP:NOT. Sionk (talk) 21:23, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- Merge to wikt:zeitgeist and move Zeitgeist (disambiguation) to this location. Agreed it fails WP:DICDEF in current state.
No hope of expansion into a full article.[struck following Bearian's comment] It could become a full article on the concept of Zeitgeist as used in psychology, but currently it doesn't even hint at that. —Quiddity (talk) 00:31, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:23, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - per WP:BEFORE - of course this can be expanded. Whole books have been written on the topic. Bearian (talk) 22:04, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- I wish we could enjoin editors from citing WP:BEFORE without actually citing an example of information that was missed. Heck, we could enjoin it completely, since you have no way of knowing whether or not I investigated for relevant sources beforehand. Suffice it to say that I remain unconvinced of the potential for an encyclopedic article that differs from all of our existing article on similar topics. Powers T 18:07, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
- Keep It's in fact a valid loanword and all I shall criticize aboout the article is that it has not exceeded stub's state. "Zeitgeist" is a notable subject. SirAppleby (talk) 16:49, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
- Evidence for that, please? It's no fair to just assert it's notable without providing evidence. Powers T 18:23, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
- As the proposer says, word (or loanword) definitions are suitable for dictionaries (or wiktionaries), not Wikipedia. Sionk (talk) 19:48, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
- Perhaps this text could be combined with the disambig? IRWolfie- (talk) 01:48, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Keep We have nineteen articles on the Zeitgeist (disambiguation) page, and editors want to turn Zeitgeist into a red link? There is no case for deletion of either the title or the edit history, and any other issues are a matter for ordinary editing, not AfD discussion. Unscintillating (talk) 01:49, 14 October 2012 (UTC)