Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hebenon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Kooky2 (talk | contribs) at 21:36, 16 October 2012 (Hebenon). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:03, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:03, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]