Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angelica (dance)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ✗plicit 14:31, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Angelica (dance)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Long-standing single-source one-line dicdef. Nothing indicates that this is encyclopedia material. BD2412 T 23:41, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. BD2412 T 23:41, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Greece. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 01:12, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is coverage in an encyclopaedia here, and this academic article. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 14:21, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- The first source literally contains nothing more than the following line in a list of dances: "ἀγγελική, ἀγγελικόν, angeliki, angelike, aggeliki, angelikon". The second is a hair more promising, but does not take this article beyond a dictionary definition of this being the name of an ancient Greek dance. BD2412 T 17:47, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please click on the link in the encyclopaedia database: it will download a .docx file, which contains more information and translations of the relevant primary sources. Also, I think the analysis in the second article goes beyond a simple dictionary definition: there are three paragraphs of analysis with quotations from the ancient sources. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 17:53, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That .docx file seems to be a dicdef, still, appended by a list of instances. How is the article expanded from that in an encyclopedic way? BD2412 T 18:37, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are you reading the .docx? It's 1041 words and full of new information. Then there's the article, which devotes 3 paragraphs to discuss what the dance might've involved, with reference to the ancient sources and the "messenger" etymology. The article could obviously be improved using these sources. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 18:47, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Most of those 1041 words seem to describe incidental uses of the term in other works. BD2412 T 22:36, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- The third source cited is a short academic article, which certainly goes beyond dict defn. For those without Greek angelos means messenger. It has given rise to the word angel, who in a Christianb contet is seen as God's angel. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:33, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:47, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep°. Referenced, meets general notability guidelines and a topic of historical interest. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 12:08, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think it meets notability. I have seen many entries similar to this that have been preserved --PaulPachad (talk) 18:04, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, subject meets GNG. HenryTemplo (talk) 18:55, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all the aforementioned reasons. ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 09:57, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article would do better with more information, but it passes notability and can stand as an article. NMasiha (talk) 19:40, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the sources I see now, it is notable. Zeddedm (talk) 02:05, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.