Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Origin of the name Eskimo
From 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 merge to Eskimo. Notable and well-sourced, but not suitable as a stand-alone article. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:09, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Origin of the name Eskimo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
This article contains nothing but etymology, as explained right in the first sentence. The corresponding section from the parent Eskimo article is actually longer than this one is, making the split seem absurd. To the extent that we have etymology for the word "Eskimo", it belongs in the Eskimo article; aside from that limited extent, this content belongs in a dictionary, not an encyclopedia. Powers T 13:29, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. —+Angr 14:13, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge back into Eskimo#Nomenclature, but dictionaries include brief one-line etymologies, not paragraphs of sourced prose. This content definitely belongs at Wikipedia (as opposed to Wiktionary), but as a section of the general Eskimo article rather than an article on its own. +Angr 14:13, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Etymologies in dictionaries are only brief because they're printed on paper. The medium of the dictionary is not our concern, only the character of the content. Powers T 14:28, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Just as Wikipeida is not limited by space in the manner of a traditional encyclopaedia, likewise Wiktionary does not have the paper-based constraints of traditional dictionaries. Thryduulf (talk) 14:46, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Etymologies in dictionaries are brief because that's the nature of dictionaries, whether they're made of paper or not. While Wiktionary is technically capable of holding five paragraphs of etymological information in an entry, in practice Wiktionary entries don't do that. If someone were to add all of this, including references, to wikt:Eskimo#Etymology, it would almost certainly be soon reverted on the grounds that Wiktionary isn't an encyclopedia. +Angr 15:00, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- … and people more used to Wiktionary and not-paper dictionaries would rightly object to such reversion. The only people who think that dictionaries are like this are people who don't have a wide enough experience of dictionaries. They may come to Wiktionary and boldly edit to accord with their own limited mental models, but they are eventually encouraged to learn that Wiktionary is not a paper dictionary, and that paper pocket dictionaries do not form the model for all dictionaries. There is not a single complaint about length currently at Wiktionary's Etymology scriptorium. And there are past Beer Parlour discussions where people have pressed for etymologies to be longer. Uncle G (talk) 19:06, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The OED has some long entries in it about etymology of various words... and it's a dictionary; though some articles in Wiktionary do get transwikied to Wikipedia... 70.29.208.69 (talk) 06:55, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Etymologies in dictionaries are brief because that's the nature of dictionaries, whether they're made of paper or not. While Wiktionary is technically capable of holding five paragraphs of etymological information in an entry, in practice Wiktionary entries don't do that. If someone were to add all of this, including references, to wikt:Eskimo#Etymology, it would almost certainly be soon reverted on the grounds that Wiktionary isn't an encyclopedia. +Angr 15:00, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Just as Wikipeida is not limited by space in the manner of a traditional encyclopaedia, likewise Wiktionary does not have the paper-based constraints of traditional dictionaries. Thryduulf (talk) 14:46, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Etymologies in dictionaries are only brief because they're printed on paper. The medium of the dictionary is not our concern, only the character of the content. Powers T 14:28, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But what is at stake here is not merely the etymology of the word for the stake of philological interest, as would be the case in most dictionaries. Rather, the discussion here treats the relationship between supposed etymologies of Eskimo and perceptions of the word as derogatory. This is much broader than would normally be considered in a dictionary, regardless of page count. Cnilep (talk) 18:19, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge back into Eskimo. Angr has it right. LadyofShalott 14:22, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, no real point in merging text 1 into text 2 when text 2 is already longer. Nyttend (talk) 14:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge. If Origin of the name Eskimo contains any unique (useful) information, it deserves to be salvaged into Eskimo#Nomenclature regardless of the article's size. — Rankiri (talk) 15:30, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Eskimo. Even though the section "Nomenclature" on that page is longer, it doesn't contain all of the information, nor the sources, on Origin of the name Eskimo. Don't confuse word count with content. Cnilep (talk) 19:12, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep is highly notable and well-sourced. Sebwite (talk) 04:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Neither of which is in question, nor is the combination of the two sufficient to have an article. The issue in question is scope, specifically the contention that Wikipedia is not the place for detailed etymological information. Powers T 12:33, 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.