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 17:44, 28 August 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]

@@ Line 13: / Line 13: @@
 *'''Keep''' - Beyond the scope of Wiktionary, although maybe this could be copied to Witchionary. Plenty of sources and encyclopedic content. --[[User:Explodicle|<span style="background:Silver;color:Black;letter-spacing:2pt">Explodicle</span>]] <font size="-2">([[User talk:Explodicle|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/Explodicle|C]])</font> 17:54, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 **Wiktionary's scope is not our concern.  [[User:LtPowers|Powers]] <sup><small><small>[[User talk:LtPowers|T]]</small></small></sup> 13:00, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
+::* 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 [[:Category:Words|plenty of other words]]. I wouldn't have a problem with moving this article to [[Witch (terminology)]], though. --[[User:Explodicle|<span style="background:Silver;color:Black;letter-spacing:2pt">Explodicle</span>]] <font size="-2">([[User talk:Explodicle|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/Explodicle|C]])</font> 17:44, 28 August 2009 (UTC)