Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anabasii
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 of the debate was no consensus; but Wikipedia is certinaly not a dictionary, so I have transwikied it to Wiktionary. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 15:55, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Anabasii[edit]
Non-Notable Neologism, dicdef. Wikipedia is not a junkyard. TerrorIsland 07:04, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. not a neologism.--blue520 07:18, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]- But you don't dispute that it is non-notable and dicdef? Or that keeping it makes wikipedia junkyard. I apologize for calling it a neologism, I ought to have said "anachronism". TerrorIsland 07:36, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep How about slight but not greatly notable, more than a dicdef but not by much and wikipedia is not a junkyard but deleting this will have no effect on junkyard status.--blue520 08:32, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I am new to wikipedia, how does a weak keep differ from a regular keep? Does it weigh less in the discussion? I know that this isn't a place to vote, according to the description of VfD, but even if it were, I don't know what a weak vote is. TerrorIsland 23:15, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep How about slight but not greatly notable, more than a dicdef but not by much and wikipedia is not a junkyard but deleting this will have no effect on junkyard status.--blue520 08:32, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- But you don't dispute that it is non-notable and dicdef? Or that keeping it makes wikipedia junkyard. I apologize for calling it a neologism, I ought to have said "anachronism". TerrorIsland 07:36, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The article does a great job explaining the meaning and etymology of the word! TerrorIsland, why do you think it's junk? It looks good to me, even if it is kind of a neologism/anachronism. Besides, we're always looking for new articles, and this one fits the bill! Jimpartame 12:51, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete clear-cut dicdef, a foreign-language one at that, and no we're not short of articles! Fishhead64 15:48, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not a foreign-language word. It's a word in English which is derived from the Greek word αναβασις. I'm not sure what you mean when you say we're not short of articles; there are clearly many subjects Wikipedia does not yet cover adequately. Jimpartame 15:55, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Transwiki to Wiktionary and delete from here. There are zero articles in English on the Internet (according to Google) which use this term, except for Wikipedia. User:Zoe|(talk) 16:42, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This is a well-sourced, non-dicdef, certainly no neologism as the nom initially alleged. I'm frankly taken aback at this article's nomination. RGTraynor 16:45, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not a neologism? Then kindly explain where it is used in the English language, since there are zero Google hits to it. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:37, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Here here. TerrorIsland 23:13, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- While this might come as a shock to some people, the English language not only was invented some time before Google was, but it's even evolved a few times since. RGTraynor 08:33, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- While this might come as a shock to some people, English dictionaries tend to include words that are in the English language. And there are many, many, many English dictionaries on the Internet. And yet apparently not a single one of them has ever heard of this "word". User:Zoe|(talk) 21:52, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The Cyclopaedia, or Universal Dictionary of Arts and Sciences obviously has. Did you read the anabasii article? It mentions this stuff. Jimpartame 22:40, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I most certainly did. Thanks for assuming good faith. User:Zoe|(talk) 15:25, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I apologize if I offended you; I'm still learning how this place works. But if you did read the article, why would you say that no English dictionaries have heard of anabasii? Jimpartame 23:42, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I most certainly did. Thanks for assuming good faith. User:Zoe|(talk) 15:25, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The Cyclopaedia, or Universal Dictionary of Arts and Sciences obviously has. Did you read the anabasii article? It mentions this stuff. Jimpartame 22:40, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- A neologism is something new. That's what "neologism" means. This is an old thing, so it isn't a neologism. Jimpartame 01:31, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It is, nonetheless, a dicdef. Fishhead64 05:21, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm pretty sure "dicdef" means "dictionary definition." Are you using it to mean something else? I'm new here. Jimpartame 05:29, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh no I am a neologism! Jimpartame 05:30, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No, you're a newbie. :) Welcome, by the way. Yes, dicdef is dictionary definition, which means that at best it belongs at Wiktionary, our sister project. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:01, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh no I am a neologism! Jimpartame 05:30, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm pretty sure "dicdef" means "dictionary definition." Are you using it to mean something else? I'm new here. Jimpartame 05:29, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It is, nonetheless, a dicdef. Fishhead64 05:21, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- While this might come as a shock to some people, English dictionaries tend to include words that are in the English language. And there are many, many, many English dictionaries on the Internet. And yet apparently not a single one of them has ever heard of this "word". User:Zoe|(talk) 21:52, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not a neologism? Then kindly explain where it is used in the English language, since there are zero Google hits to it. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:37, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Proof: This word in an English dictionary from 1728, showing that it's a real word and not a neologism Jimpartame 22:45, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Has anyone given good reason to think this isn't a dicdef without the potential to be expanded? Terror Island 07:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, I did a little research. The article states that it was originally based on material from the 1728 Cyclopaedia, but it seems it did not make use of all the relevant material from that source. The Cyclopaedia's entry, which I assume you have all read by now, has the note "See COURIER, and POST," which seems to have been ignored. These entries are vital to understanding the context of "Couriers who travel'd on Horseback, or in Chariots." Our article would be much improved by incorporating that information, as well as other sources on the historic role of postal dispatch messengers. (Wikipedia has some broad information on this topic already, but here we want to focus particularly on the role of the anabasii.) Mention should also be made of the four classes of couriers traditionally distinguished in antiquity, two of which are covered by "anabasii." The Cyclopaedia entries: Anabasii, Courier, and Post. The Cyclopaedia is only a starting point, but it should be obvious that our article as it stands has not even exhausted that starting point yet. So, no, this is not an article with no possibility of expansion. Does that answer your question? Jimpartame 10:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- A minor correction: since the Post entry is split up over two pages, this part is relevant too. It's where the four kinds of couriers are mentioned. By the way, the Cyclopaedia's stated source on that is a treatise by Louis Hornigk, but the title isn't given. Does anyone here know what that treatise was called? If this article doesn't get deleted, it would be worth looking into that. Jimpartame 10:42, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, I did a little research. The article states that it was originally based on material from the 1728 Cyclopaedia, but it seems it did not make use of all the relevant material from that source. The Cyclopaedia's entry, which I assume you have all read by now, has the note "See COURIER, and POST," which seems to have been ignored. These entries are vital to understanding the context of "Couriers who travel'd on Horseback, or in Chariots." Our article would be much improved by incorporating that information, as well as other sources on the historic role of postal dispatch messengers. (Wikipedia has some broad information on this topic already, but here we want to focus particularly on the role of the anabasii.) Mention should also be made of the four classes of couriers traditionally distinguished in antiquity, two of which are covered by "anabasii." The Cyclopaedia entries: Anabasii, Courier, and Post. The Cyclopaedia is only a starting point, but it should be obvious that our article as it stands has not even exhausted that starting point yet. So, no, this is not an article with no possibility of expansion. Does that answer your question? Jimpartame 10:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, it's more than a dicdef and appears to be a real and notable group of people. --
Rory096(block) 16:32, 21 April 2006 (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.