Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Floruit

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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 no consensus. Both sides have presented arguments but it is hard to determine which side prevails. Tone 15:28, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Floruit

Floruit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Word is a verb, that means 'flourished'.

  • WP:TITLE says article titles are supposed to be nouns, not verbs.
  • There's a perfectly good wiktionary article (Wiktionary:floruit) that covers the same ground
  • We don't really do latin here; the wikipedia isn't a latin-english dictionary (although you're allowed glossaries of legal terms, but this isn't a glossary.)
  • Article is about the word, and is a simple usage guide of the word, this violates WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary

The wikipedia doesn't really do verbs at all, so please vote delete. - Wolfkeeper 16:50, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strongest possible keep. Wikipedia policies do not preclude articles on words. From WP:NOT: "In some cases, a word or phrase itself may be an encyclopedic subject, such as Macedonia (terminology) or truthiness". This is one of those cases. Since 2006 WP:DOBMOS:DOB has indicated that "When the individual is known to have been alive (flourishing) at certain dates, [[floruit|fl.]] is used in articles to link to floruit, in case the meaning is not familiar..." As such there are literally thousands of incoming links. Additionally there is the precedent of the hundreds of other Latin words, and English words of Latin origin, in Category:Latin words and phrases. Deleting this would be extraordinarily unproductive.--Cúchullain t/c 17:14, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • First of all, the instruction you quote is at MOS:DOB not WP:DOB. Second, it is absurd to use such a request to justify keeping an inappropriate article. There are several alternatives, including most obviously a link to wikt:floruit instead, that would work just as well if not better. Powers T 11:46, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I fixed the link, thanks. I disagree that this is an "inappropriate" article, and the fact that the article has thousands of incoming links and is mentioned in the guidelines suggests that other editors agree. I also disagree that a crosslink to Wiktionary would serve our readers well. Wikitionary doesn't (and shouldn't) indicate that the word refers to "the period of time during which a person, school, movement or even species was active," that it is used when "the birth or death dates are unknown, but some other evidence exists that indicates when a person was alive," or that in art history it "specifically denotes artistic activity, not just the existence of the artist." On the other hand, it does get into information not relevant to our discussion: namely that in Latin it is the third-person singular perfect active indicative of flōreō. That's because Wiktionary is a dictionary and has a goal of including all definitions of a word, but not a depth of coverage. On the other hand, we're only interested in the one use of this term (the historical use indicating when a person, etc. was known to be alive) and to give in-depth coverage of it (limited as it may be at this point).--Cúchullain t/c 15:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The only discussions I've seen where this came up, it was generally agreed that articles on individual latin phrases (generally legal terms) weren't very productive. They tend to consist of two paragraphs, and that's it- classic dicdefs like this one. The fact that there's lots of links to an article isn't a problem either, we have bots and soft redirects to wiktionary sort out that kind of thing.- Wolfkeeper 17:38, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict)Also, WP:VERB isn't being contradicted here: the article isn't on the topic of flourishing, it's on the word "floruit". By the use-mention distinction, the word "floruit" is a noun, as it's the subject here. As in the statement, "'Cats' is a noun", where the word "cats", not cats, is the subject.[1]--Cúchullain t/c 17:46, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That makes no sense at all. If you accepted your 'magic' claim (and I completely don't buy it, the use-mention distinction says no such claim at all, it doesn't turn verbs into nouns), but if you did buy it then any and all verbs would be allowed to have individual articles in the wikipedia. I can't think of any articles except this one that is on a verb.- Wolfkeeper 01:31, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll put it this way: in the sentence "'Floruit' is a Latin verb," the word "Floruit" is the subject. The subject is a noun. The article isn't about the act of flourishing, it's about the word floruit. And no, keeping this article doesn't mean we would have to "allow" any and all articles on verbs.--Cúchullain t/c 04:38, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's bollocks, for the reasons I already gave.- Wolfkeeper 22:23, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not, actually. There is a clear difference between using a word and mentioning it. But more to the point, an article's title is not a reason for deletion. It's a matter of cleanup that should be hammered out on the talk page.--Cúchullain t/c 05:45, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nonexistent? —Deor (talk) 16:51, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The usage of the word appears to be encyclopedic, supported by the source Colonel Warden found, and not duplicated (nor should it be duplicated) at wikt:floruit. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:08, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems obviously notable. —innotata 16:33, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. We encourage the use of [[floruit|fl.]] in WP:DOB, so it is part of the infrastructure iof Wikipedia. This means that we need the page to exist even if is was not otherwise justified, because it is part of the mechanics of Wikipedia now. We have incorporated the (somewhat musty and quaint) use of "fl." from older reference works, and it is quite useful, but many of our readers will encounter it here first and will not know what it means so the link is highly useful. -Arch dude (talk) 23:49, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's a useful article, even if a brief one, and includes more information than would normally be found in a dictionary. Discussion of its usage in various fields is appropriate for an encyclopedia, since it might be used variously in different circumstances, preferred in some, and avoided in others. Deleting it because it's a word is just pedantic. P Aculeius (talk) 03:58, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definite Keep. Firstly, you're misusing the policy page, as that pertains specifically to how to title an article, not to the subject matter of the article. Verbs do exist in titles, where necessary, but in any case, that argument is being misapplied. As for Wikipedia not being a dictionary, that policy reflects the idea merely that not every single word in any given language is given an encyclopedia entry, but some words do deserve one, if they are notable enough. If swear words can have entries, I think that renders that argument invalid. Furthermore, if you saw the {{Chronology}} Navbox on the article's page, you'd see A. There are other words which merit their own articles, and B. There are Latin words on there, such as Circa.

Aside from repudiating your arguments, this is indeed a very helpful and important article, largely due to its being a very notable topic, and as a Wikipedia entry, it has much more potential for expansion and being far more informative than a terse definition at Wiktionary. KirkCliff2 (talk) 04:13, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a further note, Dream Focus was raising a valid point, in that if an article's title is ultimately in another language, that doesn't mean the only entry should be in its native language's Wikipedia. Should Résumé only be written about in the French Wikipedia, despite it being a word used around the world, every day? KirkCliff2 (talk) 04:34, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Résumé has been adopted into English, but the difference is that if you read the article it's not about the word Résumé, it's about Résumés, written lists of work you've done. The floruit article we're discussing is simply about the word itself and its usage. We don't need it, the wiktionary version is fine, and this article violates our policies.- Wolfkeeper 01:34, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - extremely widely used - similar to et cetera, which is a more substantial encyclopaedic article. Claritas (talk) 20:30, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Notability doesn't count if it violates an ISNOT. The notability policy says: "A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets the general notability guidelines below and is not excluded by WP:NOT." [emphasis mine] This topic violates an ISNOT, because it's simply about a word. We have a perfectly acceptable dictionary, and it covers this word perfectly well. You don't keep a dog and bark yourself.- Wolfkeeper 01:31, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • First, the "quick summary" in WP:NOT is still policy. Second, WP:DICTIONARY doesn't make it clear that verbs aren't allowed, it says "Per the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (verbs), single-word article titles are usually nouns or verbal nouns (i.e. participles or gerunds)", so now we're really talking about the WP:TITLE policy, which can be fixed by changing Floruit to a gerund, (Floruiti? I don't know, my Latin's terrible, but I'm sure someone around here can figure it out). Third, I assume you mean Wikipedia:Deletion policy, since AfD's not a policy, and it says that "[a]rticles that can never be anything other than a dictionary article ("dicdef") should preferably be merged and redirected (within Wikipedia) in an adjective→noun or a verb→gerund manner", which still leaves the door open for making it a gerund if it's just been misnamed. VernoWhitney (talk) 02:42, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I pointed out above, I don't think WP:TITLE is being contradicted here anyway, but as Verno says, even if it were, having a wrong title is no reason for deletion. And of course WP:NOT is policy, it even says it right at the top of the page ;)--Cúchullain t/c 04:38, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't actually read your earlier post, but he may actually have a point there, since we have an article on Voting and not Vote, even though you could say "Vote is a word in the English language". Of course, for all I know there are already other Latin verbs out there taunting WP:TITLE. <shrug> VernoWhitney (talk) 12:10, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The difference is that voting is on the topic of voting, not the word. The topic can be discussed under the noun title "voting" rather than the verb title "vote". Floruit is about the word "floruit", so obviously it can only have that title. But this is really a discussion for the article talk page; WP:TITLE does not imply that articles that don't have the right title should be deleted.--Cúchullain t/c 12:51, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Vote is a noun, and based on your standards, entirely notable. We don't have an article on that either. That's because articles aren't on words, they're on things; like voting systems, and a vote is always part of a voting system. According to you there should a two paragraph dicdef article explaining what the word vote means. Nahhhh. That's what dictionaries are for; that's exactly what they're for. This article we're discussing violates an ISNOT; even if you take on board the entirely dubious idea expressed in WP:NOT that some words deserve an encyclopedia article; this one doesn't, there's no gain at all over the wiktionary article. It's being fort for here out of shear bloody-mindedness.- Wolfkeeper 16:44, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No one, least of all me, ever suggested the word "vote" ought to have an article, you're pulling that out of thin air. Once again, keeping this article does not mean that all other articles on words are appropriate. To my mind this is an obvious example of a "word or phrase [that] may be an encyclopedic subject" as noted in WP:NOT.--Cúchullain t/c 21:03, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely, none, not a single word of this article is encyclopedic. it's just a stupid dicdef that's been linked from a bunch of places. Big fucking deal. There is not a single redeeming feature here; Encyclopedias are intended to give extended treatment. I say what extended treatment? There is none, and I see no evidence at all there will ever be so. - Wolfkeeper 22:17, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is a textbook case of a dictionary entry. It looks like a dictionary entry, walks like a dictionary entry, and talks like a dictionary entry. The concept of "the word floruit" is simply not a notable, encyclopedic topic. It's just a word. Powers T 13:41, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Widely used scholarly term. Article is insufficient in its current form, so might be marked as a stub. Carrite (talk) 16:01, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but per Art history: its use and abuse (cited in the article), I wouldn't mind seeing some of our articles on the various possibilities of dating things, persons, events, careers, etc. - e.g. terminus ante quem and post quem - merged together somehow. How about a section in chronology (cf. relative and absolute dating)? Cavila (talk)
That's a merge not a keep.- Wolfkeeper 22:17, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's a keep or merge, implicitly with some advice to make the relation between various terms/methods a little clearer. Cavila (talk) 08:56, 31 May 2010 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Floruit&oldid=1069474773"