Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Witch (etymology): Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 22:43, 3 September 2009

Witch (etymology)

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

Nothing but etymology, which is dictionary content. Also includes unrelated section on the word "Wicca". Powers ^T 15:42, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 15:45, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The talk page indicates that this complicated etymology was broken out of the Witchcraft and Wicca articles. There's easily enough referenced information here to support a stand alone article; it couldn't be merged back without either loss of data or undue emphasis; and the etymology is complicated enough to warrant a full treatment. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:55, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Loss of data isn't a problem; this is dictionary content. The discussion on terminology in the Witch article is quite sufficient for encyclopedic purposes. Powers ^T 13:00, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A whole article on the etymology of a word. Isn't this what makes Wikipedia a great resource? Francium12 16:38, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, etymology is dictionary content, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Powers ^T 12:58, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Beyond the scope of Wiktionary, although maybe this could be copied to Witchionary. Plenty of sources and encyclopedic content. --Explodicle (T/C) 17:54, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wiktionary's scope is not our concern. Powers ^T 13:00, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's true. The point I was originally trying to make is that Wiktionary is for definitions and Wikipedia is for subjects, and WP:NOTDICTIONARY item #2 states that in some cases a word or phrase itself may be an encyclopedic subject. For example, we have articles on Negro, Ain't, and plenty of other words. I wouldn't have a problem with moving this article to Witch (terminology), though. --Explodicle (T/C) 17:44, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, we have lots of articles about words, some of which are worth keeping. Those that are worth keeping have extensive encyclopedic information about the word, like cultural impact and famous individual uses of the word. This article has none of that -- it's nothing but an extended etymology, which is dictionary content. Powers ^T 00:16, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at the Modern "Wicca" section; it has plenty of historical context beyond simple etymology. --Explodicle (T/C) 15:34, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps some, but I've been mostly ignoring that section because it seems completely misplaced (having very little, if anything, to do with the etymology of the word "witch"). Powers ^T 17:28, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - "Wicca" is an older form of "witch" that's been reappropriated by a modern religious movement. That seems directly related to the word's history.--Chris Johnson (talk) 16:28, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well the article never actually says that, as far as I can tell. And even so, then the further development of the term "Wicca" still has nothing to do with the word "witch". The relationship could be covered in all the detail necessary by one sentence. Powers ^T 11:56, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is dictionary material covered by the Wiktionary entries wikt:witch and wikt:wicca. Thryduulf (talk) 15:41, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 15:41, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Smerdis. Contested etymology of a culturally significant word. It's relevant to how Wiccans in particular see the history of witchcraft; for example, the spurious connection to Witan is quite prevalent in Wiccan literature.--Chris Johnson (talk) 16:50, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Any information of relevance belongs in the witch and wicca articles, then; not here. Powers ^T 11:57, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This clearly violates our policy WP:DICDEF and is redundant to our articles Witch, Wizard, Wicca &c.
Keep. Notable information that seems to include content what would not be in included in its Wiktionary entry.--Pink Bull (talk) 21:54, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wiktionary's content is irrelevant to this discussion. Powers ^T 22:43, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 25: / Line 25: @@
 *'''Delete''' This clearly violates our policy [[WP:DICDEF]] and is redundant to our articles [[Witch]], [[Wizard]], [[Wicca]] &c.
 *'''Keep'''. Notable information that seems to include content what would not be in included in its Wiktionary entry.--[[User:Pink Bull|Pink Bull]] ([[User talk:Pink Bull|talk]]) 21:54, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
+**Wiktionary's content is irrelevant to this discussion.  [[User:LtPowers|Powers]] <sup><small><small>[[User talk:LtPowers|T]]</small></small></sup> 22:43, 3 September 2009 (UTC)