Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Archontology

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 delete. As an aside, I would encourage contributors to future deletion discussions to be more concise. Prolix arguments do not always add a lot. Stifle (talk) 14:41, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Archontology[edit]

[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)

The the word is in no RS English dictionaries (that I could find). It appears to have some currency as a Hungarian word, (hu:Archontológia) made from Greek components, but in English "archontologies" are just known as kinds of directories, peerages, etc. The current article appears composed of OR, and was seemingly created to promote archontology.org on the web (which it does, since Wikipedia acts as the sole amplifier for the invented English word). Without independent sources on "archontology" an article is not viable. Alexbrn (talk) 03:06, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I can't find any evidence that 'archontology' exists as a legitimate subject for an article either. Wikipedia is not a platform for the promotion of unnecessary neologisms... AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:50, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do not Delete, because Reasons for deletion as per WP:DP:

1. speedy-deletion criteria met? evidently not; 2. copyright violations: nope; 3. vandalism: nope; 4. advertising/spam: not on the part of the 'inventor', long dead (cf. article as of 17 Nov 2021) — and not more than for any random book or TV show (s.b. for details); 5. content forks: nope; 6. neologisms or original theories: nope (in academic use for well more than a century; s.b. for details); 7. failure to find reliable sources: nope (cf. article as of 17 Nov 2021); 8. notability guideline: nope (in academic use for well more than a century); 9. living person: nope; 10. redundant/useless template: nope (cf. counter-argument 5 below) 11. overcategorization: nope; 12. unused/obsolete/non-free: nope; 13. contrary to established separate policy: evidently not (for 16 yrs); 14. otherwise not suitable: evidently not (for 16 yrs).

Argument for deletion 1: "in no RS English dictionaries", i.e. not an English word

Argument for deletion 2: "can't find any evidence that 'archontology' exists as a legitimate subject for an article"

https://www.google.com/search?q=archontological+study&tbm=books

archontology

- several other translations of Hungarian-language publications, e.g. a title translated as "New methods—New opportunities. Prosopography's new methods and its relation to traditional genealogy and archontology based on the almanac of the parliamentary sessions of the Reform Era" (books?id=TXHQDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA90)
(Seemingly) Non-Hungarian examples include
- Romanian Review of (seemingly) 1977, containing the following sentence: "Enough with this absurd anachronism, the hybrid archontological * Constitution which we should wisely and calmly send to the archives..." (books?id=rUFNAAAAYAAJ, p.108)
- Gold, Steven Jay (1993). Paradigms in Political Theory. Iowa State University Press (books?id=qw-CAAAAMAAJ, p.191) contains the sentence: "This is in a sense simply an archontological application of the context principle."
- the Masters Abstracts International of (seemingly) 1994 contains the phrase "Inseminate architecture: An archontological reading of" (Masters Abstracts International, vol. 32, 3-6 @ Google Books)
- elsewhere one finds "Major works dealing with historical geography are also listed, as well as those dealing with archontology and heraldry." (books?id=gwwWAQAAMAAJ, p.387)
- a Polish researcher is described as follows: "His research interests include social history [...]; archontology of the Late Middle Ages; [...]" (books?id=hiUlDwAAQBAJ, p.xv)

Argument for deletion 3: "current article appears composed of OR, and was seemingly created to promote archontology.org"

Which 'current' do you mean? Pre-Nov 2021 (by the original author) or the rewrite (by me, *not* the original author - nor in his employ)?
Counter-argument 3a: OR is not in itself a reason for deletion, or is it nowadays? Where does it say so (in the WP:DP)? Besides, you better delete every plot summary of every book, film, TV episode, etc covered in the WP then! Instead, request additional sources, why don't you?
Counter-argument 3b: archontology.org is but one website mentioned/listed. Is that 'promotion'? There's a wiki article titled "Ruler (film)" about a Telugu-language film in the 'English' wikipedia. Is that not promotion? Does that not consist of OR? Delete that then! Along with any other article on films, books, etc - esp. if not originally done in English...

Argument for deletion 4: "Without independent sources on 'archontology' an article is not viable"

Counter-argument 4a: Books published in/since the 17th century (mentioned in the article as of 17 Nov 2021) do certainly constitute independent sources. Not enough? Request additional sources, why don't you?
Counter-argument 4b: Either way, the term is clearly used — and has been used long before any of us, incl. the original author, was born (cf. counter-argument 2 above). What the original author did, was to provide a definition and explanation of the term. Isn't that the whole point of an encyclopedia? Not concise enough? Too much opinion? Well, there's a tag for that.

Argument for deletion 5: "unnecessary neologisms"

Counter-argument 5a: A word that has been used for centuries (in academic Latin, German, Hungarian, etc.) or at least decades (in academic English) is clearly not a neologism (again, cf. article as of 17 Nov 2021).
Counter-argument 5b: An encyclopedia like WP is there to provide explanations of words, esp. when such explanation would go beyond a single line fitting into a dictionary like wikt...
Counter-argument 5c: 'Necessity' is in the eye of the beholder. If a word is used and is not a synonym of another, then it is clearly not 'unnecessary'. Nobody is forced to read the article (or use the term for that matter), surely. Many though do (cf. counter-argument 2 above). 176.95.227.240 (talk) 18:19, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of chaff there, but still no source that shows this topic satisfies WP:GNG, addressing the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Is there even one semi-decent source on the topic of "archontology" that meets this criterion? If so, name it. Alexbrn (talk) 18:27, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioned in the article (sorry, forgot the proper ref: Wertner, M. (1894). Ungarns Palatine und Bane im Zeitalter der Árpáden — Archontologische Studie. Ungarische Revue, 14, 129—1): https://books.google.de/books?id=xCMVAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA129&dq=Archontologische+Studie - 176.95.227.240 (talk) 18:54, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's just a passing mention of the word in German, which required original research to extract. The concept in English (as I said in the nomination) is not called "archontology" but is just known as a kind of directory making. If you're going to show the topic of "archontology" is worthy of treatment on Wikipedia, you're going to need a source with an in depth discussion of what "archontology" is. If that's your best source it seems your're admitting there are no such sources. Alexbrn (talk) 19:03, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Passing mention? It's the bloody headline. Is that not what you requested? "addressing the topic directly and in detail" - the cited article does address the topic *directly* (in the headline even) to then proceed in discussing it *in detail*. What more *do* you want? A definition? I have already provided one: The 1646 book title (cited in the article) IS a definition - again, right there in the headline ("Archontologia Cosmica, that is [...]"). Is that not *directly* enough for you? That book fills 1,000+ pages with what the headline promises - not *in detail* enough? How is that any different from the example in WP:GNG, "The book-length history of IBM by Robert Sobel is plainly non-trivial coverage of IBM."? Does this mean that a company on which no such report was written, doesn't exist? Or do you need a secondary source saying that the company exists before accepting its existence?

Here's another more concise definition, in English even: Bibliotheca Britannica (1824), vol.3, p.15: "ARCHONTOLOGY, signifies any thing that respects the constitution of chief magistrates." [1].

Another one, more recently (a 1999 review of Engel1996, previously mentioned), again in convenient English, and more to the point, and in more than one line, in case that'd be your next complaint: opens with a definition, in itself a quote, saying that archontology is "a branch of historical studies which deals with office holders and dignitaries. Its place is next to governmental history among the auxiliary disciplines. Its adjoining fields are [...]" (Kubinyi, A. (1999). The Hungatian Political Elite in the Middle Ages. Budapest Review of Books, 9(2-3), 65-70. [2]).

Or how about neither English nor Hungarian for a change, a Russian encyclopedic entry: "АРХОНТОЛОГИЯ (от греч. ἄρχων, род. п. ἄρχοντος – начальник, правитель), одна из вспомогательных исторических дисциплин, изучающая историю гос. должностей. [...]" [3] or the book mentioned in that entry (Stukalova, 2001), which does also provide definition & discussion: [4] 176.95.227.240 (talk) 20:09, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You prove the point. There is no detailed discussion of "archontology". Indeed, the word and its meaning don't even exist in current English. Your invocation of a definition from 1824 with a completely different meaning from that proffered by the article confirms this is not a coherent notable topic Wikipedia can grapple with. For that to be the case we'd need some evidence in passes the WP:GNG. Can you produce any source to satisfy this requirement? Alexbrn (talk) 20:32, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seems I have to rehash once more: The article was created 16 years ago. It saw numerous edits, with none of the editors complaining about it not being an English word (or did they?). There also are several sister articles in other languages. But hey, they *of course* don't know what they're talking about, right?

Then one fine day you hopped along, and instead of e.g. first requesting additional sources (or did you?), you just deleted most of the article as "*likely* OR" (again, you, the expert, couldn't be bothered to check or at least request ...). Have you even read it? Judging by your edit history for that day you can't possibly have... A mere 4 minutes later you proposed deletion altogether, falsely claiming that the original author invented the term. A simple search in Google Books or JStor or whatever could and does *easily* refute that argument. Is that arrogance or incompetence? What about due process & all that? No, it's the rules! Oh wait, not 'rules', but merely 'guidelines'. My mistake.

When I noticed the deletion proposal a couple days later I thought I'd invest a bit of my time and do a community service. So I took the time to write a draft (surely needs more sources, formatting, etc) to prevent the deletion & demonstrate the argument to be bogus. In response you came up with a new argument, namely that it is not an English word — even though piles of authors do use it as such and have been doing so for decades at least — not only but also in English. 'Current English' mind you, not Shakespearean English. Again, a simple search... You also claim that the article as "the sole amplifier" promotes archontology.org. How do you explain publications that predate not only the article, or the WP itself? Not to to mention that they don't mention archontology.org either - none the least because it also did not yet exist. Besides, does the article on Google promote Google? Does the article on the UK promote the UK? Do the articles on any random book or TV series promote those?

Next you stated that without independent sources 'an article is not viable'. And your solution to that issue was of course not to request such sources, but to rather have the article deleted. After all, *you* know best.

Additional claims of 'archontology' being a neologism are easily refuted as well. Again, a GooBooks/JSTOR search would do the trick. Alas, persistent lack of motivation or ability.

So, I took some more time to refute those arguments at short notice, only to be *summarily* dismissed as "chaff", i.e. irrelevant. Thank you very much.

Next you claimed that reading an article "required original research". In other words, once again you managed not only (1) to read my comment, (2) to look up the link, (3) to read the article in question, (4) to think about what you've read and (5) to write your response. Plus some 'OR' inbetween. All in the space of 9 minutes. Impressive! Though what you call 'OR' I'd call 'reading'.

And now it's back to the claim that it's not an English word? (And only English words are allowed to be covered by the English WP. Which is of course why there was no WP article on WP until some dictionary bothered to declare this neologism a 'word', an English one no less. Right?) I've already cited plenty of English-language text examples. Or would you seriously say that a word only becomes a word once some dictionary or other bothers to catch up with developments? So, before the publication of the first dictionary of the English language people didn't speak any English, they spoke only Norman French. And most of them only grunted, right? Chaucer? Just grunts.

At the risk of repeating myself: 'Archontology' was and continues to be used as an ordinary word in English-language publications. Even GoogleTranslate happily used the word when I tasked it to translate the cited Russian encyclopedia entry. Turns out there even is a wikt entry on it. But then, wikt is not reliable anyway, right?

I provided several definitions of the term that do fit not only the literal meaning of the word (a -logy, i.e. science, of archons, i.e. rulers) along with several (easily googled) examples of academic publications in academic *English*, i.a., that do use the term in line with the meaning of the word as well as the definition given in the article as well as the definitions I provided subsequently.

So, to me saying "(Stukalova, 2001), which does also provide definition & *discussion*", you respond: "There is no detailed discussion of 'archontology'." Is this Monty Pythons, are we doing the Parrot sketch? Splendid. I'm clearly wasting my time here. No wonder the original author did (apparently) not bother. In short, this discussion is evidently going in circles, which is a waste of my time. 217.91.11.181 (talk) 17:21, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Holy WP:MWOT. Rather than personal attacks and hand-waving, all that's needed is a couple of reliable sources with a detailed discussion of "archontology" (a dedicated article or book would be better still). This whole discussion arises from a posting at WP:RSN about whether archontology.org is a reliable source (spoiler: it isn't). Alexbrn (talk) 17:35, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and AndyTheGrump. Seems to be yet another personal essay aiming to make fetch happen; a dictionary definition bulked up with synthesis, with insufficient indication that it is a well-defined subject that needs a page unto itself. XOR'easter (talk) 20:30, 22 November 2021 (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.