Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Platitude

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was No consensus. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 11:28, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Platitude

This is nothing more than a long, drawn-out definition for platitude StradivariusTV 03:24, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand: I would argue that many of wikipedia's articles are long, drawn-out definitions. The article does give more information than a simple dictionary definition. Moreover, there is much potential for expansion on this topic. Perhaps this should be marked as a stub. Mistercow 05:53, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. The only real difference between a dictionary and an encyclopaedia seems to be the length of the entries. Keep. Agentsoo 13:04, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Transwiki to Wiktionary. This is a dicdef. And I simply could not disagree any more with Agentsoo's comment above. Fernando Rizo T/C 20:13, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I fall somewhere in between. An encyclopedia entry should be more than a long version of a dictionary entry. But this is certainly more than a dictionary definition. The first paragraph? Yes. A dictionary definition. The second? Not so much. Keep in mind also that the deletion policy states that we should delete articles that "Can never be more than a dictionary definition". Platitude certainly can. Mistercow 22:36, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, Mistercow. Where could this article possible go beyond its current state? I might be missing something here, but even if I am the article isn't worth keeping in its current state so it should be transwikied. I think the Geogre Doctrine applies here. Fernando Rizo T/C 23:17, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- - Care to elaborate? Agentsoo 00:23, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - I still feel that the article is more than a dicdef even in its current form. I think if anything it is borderline, but what it gives in terms of example and analysis of example gives more value than just a definition would. That said, I'd like to see it cleaned up a bit, and the analysis expanded. I'd also like to see it modified to more closely reflect the actual definition of platitude (a statement of deep content which has become meaningless through overuse). Examples of further expansion: history of cultural context, influences on philosophical thought, etc. I'm not saying the article is good, but it's a start, and the topic has potential. If it doesn't get deleted, I'll perhaps do some work on it. Mistercow 01:20, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wiktionary per StradivariusTV. The way to fix a long, drawn-out dicdef is to get rid of the unnecessary cruft — then what you have is a concise dicdef. The article in question is equivalent to "platitude (n.) A statement of little or no worth, usually meant to encourage or inspire. From Greek foo 'flat'." — and if you go to Wiktionary, you'll see that a similar definition (with the correct etymology) is already there! --Quuxplusone 20:12, 7 August 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.