Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Man (word)

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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Man (word)

Articles about words need extraordinary content to be considered encyclopedic. This article does not meet that threshold. It is a mishmash of etymologies and definitions, with no clear connecting thread that would combine them into an encyclopedic whole. It even contains a table of Old High German inflections, highlighting just how much of this content really belongs in a dictionary, not an encyclopedia. If there is any encyclopedic content here, it may be a small portion of the final section which is already well covered in other articles. Powers ^T 13:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. —+An gr 14:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although not quite as high-caliber as other articles about words (e.g. Thou), this article is certainly full of sourced, encyclopedic information that has no business in a dictionary. The OHG inflection table is probably dispensable, but the five paragraphs of etymological information that precedes it are not, nor is the "Modern usage" section at the end. The section on the rune Mannaz could probably be a separate article (as it indeed originally was), but that would still leave plenty to make a decent encyclopedia article. +Angr 14:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Extensive etymology is the domain of dictionaries, isn't it? Powers ^T 14:26, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, brief etymologies are the domain of dictionaries. Extensive etymologies, and discussion of usage, in paragraphs of connected prose, are encyclopedic information. +Angr 14:52, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Wrong. As pointed out by Nyttend below, dictionaries are not constrained to solely brief etymologies. That is purely a function of printing costs, not scope. It's not even an issue for not-paper dictionaries. Uncle G (talk) 18:34, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the sourced and NPOV discussion of its usage makes it a fitting candidate for an article, and if we have an article on a word, we really should discuss its etymology somewhat. By the way, the best dictionaries have extensive etymologies: if I remember right, the OED spends something like half a page on its etymology for "black" alone. Etymologies aside, this content belongs nowhere except an encyclopedia. Nyttend (talk) 15:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- While I appreciate your support on the etymology issue, I believe usage guides are also dictionary content, not encyclopedia content. Powers ^T 16:57, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Man#Etymology. I don't see any reason why there needs to be an entirely separate article for the word itself. Tavix | Talk 16:44, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Man (word) (10KB) is disproportionately long to be a valid section of Man (20KB). From WP:SPLIT: if an article becomes too large or a section of an article has a length that is out of proportion to the rest of the article it is recommended that a split is carried out. Personally, I would rename the article into more appropriate Etymology of man or Man (etymology)— Rankiri (talk) 17:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per arguments suggested by Angr. I also concur with Rankiri that the page is too long to be a section of Man. Cnilep (talk) 19:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think we can all agree that most of this content doesn't belong in Man; if a merge were to occur it would primarily consist of extracts from the last section. Powers ^T 00:14, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question Does Wiktionary actually take content of this kind? I don't recall seeing information presented in this format there.
I think this is a fascinating article, and I'd like to see it retained somewhere, but I must confess I think the argument that it belongs in a dictionary has considerable force. Reserving my !vote for the time being.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 21:40, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, Wiktionary has a different format for their content. If any part of this was transwikied, it would have to be reformatted, but that's normal. Powers ^T 00:14, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Powers. I'm going to go with keep.
It seems to be longstanding custom and practice, on Wikipedia, to allow this kind of content for some words: he, she, it, we, you, they. And indeed, it's possible for an article of this kind to be a featured article: see thou.
It's possible to characterise the "this is custom and practice" argument as WP:WAX, but this goes beyond that essay. A featured article is thoroughly reviewed content, and its existence implies a consensus that fundamentally definitional, etymological or usage-based articles can have a place here.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 01:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As I noted in my opening statement, some articles about words have extraordinary content and can be excellent articles. But that does not imply that any word can or should have an article. Thou is an important topic because of its historical shift in connotation from informal to formal, and its lack of an obvious cognate in modern English. Furthermore, there is really no "concept" behind the word which would be a suitable place for discussion about the word. "Man", however, is a noun, and while a limited discussion of the origin of the word itself is not inappropriate in the Man article, an entire article with detailed etymology is overkill, IMO. Powers ^T 12:29, 10 July 2009 (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.