Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hebenon: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
*'''Keep''' Added a bunch of sources. Interesting topic. The sources allow for a big expansion of the article on theories about the identity of the poison. -- [[User:Green Cardamom|Green Cardamom]] ([[User talk:Green Cardamom|talk]]) 03:33, 11 October 2012 (UTC) |
*'''Keep''' Added a bunch of sources. Interesting topic. The sources allow for a big expansion of the article on theories about the identity of the poison. -- [[User:Green Cardamom|Green Cardamom]] ([[User talk:Green Cardamom|talk]]) 03:33, 11 October 2012 (UTC) |
||
:*There are tons of sources from the 19th century, all full-text. Google "hebona site:archive.org" --[[User:Green Cardamom|Green Cardamom]] ([[User talk:Green Cardamom|talk]]) 04:19, 11 October 2012 (UTC) |
:*There are tons of sources from the 19th century, all full-text. Google "hebona site:archive.org" --[[User:Green Cardamom|Green Cardamom]] ([[User talk:Green Cardamom|talk]]) 04:19, 11 October 2012 (UTC) |
||
*'''Keep''' I don't know if this is a good reason to keep it. However, if I came across this word in Shakespeare or elsewhere, I would first search Wikipedia for information that went beyond a dictionary definition and would be surprised and disappointed not to find a full explanation and various linked sources. [[User:Kooky2|Kooky2]] ([[User talk:Kooky2|talk]]) 21:36, 16 October 2012 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 21:36, 16 October 2012
- Hebenon (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)
Hebanon is not a word, the only occurrence is in Shakespeare, where the word is "Hebona". This page appears to be the result of a typo in the Hamlet quote. Edmund Blackadder (talk) 17:32, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- Keep, surprisingly. I wouldn't think that there would be much room for expansion for an article on a Shakespearean hapax legomenon, but it seems I may be wrong. Searches of both books and scholarly articles reveals that a strangely large amount of attention has been paid to this one-off plant reference, in everything from language studies to a 1950 article in The Journal of Laryngology & Otology to more recent botany and medicine journals. Even today, there's evidently quite a bit of open debate on the topic. As for the hebona/hebenon distinction and the proper title for the article, the former appears in the Quartos, the latter in the Folios. Hebenon seems rather more common in the analytical literature, however. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:11, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:03, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:03, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Added a bunch of sources. Interesting topic. The sources allow for a big expansion of the article on theories about the identity of the poison. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 03:33, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
- There are tons of sources from the 19th century, all full-text. Google "hebona site:archive.org" --Green Cardamom (talk) 04:19, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
- Keep I don't know if this is a good reason to keep it. However, if I came across this word in Shakespeare or elsewhere, I would first search Wikipedia for information that went beyond a dictionary definition and would be surprised and disappointed not to find a full explanation and various linked sources. Kooky2 (talk) 21:36, 16 October 2012 (UTC)