Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Betrayal (2nd nomination)

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 no consensus. Courcelles 23:11, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Betrayal[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I started an AfD but I cannot complete it, except by explaining here. The article already has had and AfD and was kept simply because it was new. Now, 5 years later, it is not new but the reason for deletion remains: it is a dictionary definition plus clutter. The article Double cross also was put up for AfD and result was delete, moving the content to this article. The belongs here even less than it belonged at the original article; this is a dictionary word and the article content simply is not encyclopedic. 64.105.65.28 (talk) 19:23, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AFD: Note: this is not my AFD, I'm good-faith submitting it for the IP who wanted it. tedder (talk) 01:22, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment. This is a huge topic. No wonder wikipedians stay aside from it. Notable? yes. But the IP has a point. East of Borschov 10:47, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- But not a very good one, considering that xe didn't look too closely at the edit history for those 5 years. Uncle G (talk) 17:31, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Delete: As an approach to investigating a solution for this article, I took a look at definitions of "betray" on Wiktionary. They list the following:
1. To deliver into the hands of an enemy by treachery or fraud, in violation of trust; to give up treacherously or faithlessly; as, an officer betrayed the city.
2. To prove faithless or treacherous to, as to a trust or one who trusts; to be false to; to deceive; as, to betray a person or a cause.
3. To violate the confidence of, by disclosing a secret, or that which one is bound in honor not to make known.
4. To disclose or discover, as something which prudence would conceal; to reveal unintentionally.
5. To mislead; to expose to inconvenience not foreseen to lead into error or sin.
6. To lead astray, as a maiden; to seduce (as under promise of marriage) and then abandon.
7. To show or to indicate; -- said of what is not obvious at first, or would otherwise be concealed.
It seems to me the definitions with "encyclopedic potential" are covered by treason and the rest are really linguistic matters. So I would redirect to treason. -- BenTels (talk) 22:32, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Checking a dictionary and then guessing what meanings "have encyclopaedic potention" is not really putting deletion policy practice well. The approach that one should use is to search for sources that cover the subject, to see what sources actually exist. I did, and turned up a book (that, in fact, pre-vandalism versions of the article mentioned) and another encyclopaedia, for starters. Uncle G (talk) 17:31, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and move Betrayal (disambiguation) here. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:21, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There were the beginnings of an article here, once, that had been progressively blanked and vandalized away. I've just undone some section blanking vandalism that had stood unreverted for almost two years. It's a good idea to check the edit history of such articles before nominating them for deletion. As a bonus, I've added a citation of another, existing, encyclopaedia that has an article on this subject that covers ground that this article doesn't really cover at all, yet. Uncle G (talk) 17:31, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Treason is a legal term. The culprit has betrayed their country: they are a traitor. Betrayal is a much broader concept. I can betray my friend or lover, but that is not treason. A huge body of literature discusses the second sense of the word. It cannot be covered adequately by Wiktionary and deserves an article. It seems that this article has not evolved well. Possibly there is a problem with the intro, which sets the tone. Aymatth2 (talk) 03:08, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per finding by Uncle G that a lot of material was lost to vandalism. I have reordered this page and fixed some of the citations, revealing more sources than it seemed to have before. I'd also like to note that a lot of material was very recently gutted from the article. The edit description says it was to remove edits by a sock puppet, but looking into the history shows a version that I have restored which came before researchEditor. Now that all this material has been restored, the article is clearly not just a dictionary definition. I've tagged this article for rescue —CodeHydro 21:09, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I added a link to Betrayal (disambiguation). I have no idea how to deal with the "in popular culture" section. The number of works that deal with this theme is enormous. It is a primary literary theme in every culture and at every period. Medea, Judas, Brutus, Messalina... A huge subject. Possibly spin off another article? But that could become huge too... Any thoughts? Aymatth2 (talk) 00:36, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It is a huge subject. I've found sources discussing aspects of it relating to psychology, sociology, political science, philosophy, and religion. I think that Adraeus' original idea of dealing with treachery and betrayal trauma here in this article, at first blush, is probably a good one.
  The popular culture section was random in-films-and-on-television content that came from a merged article, that wasn't even appropriate to the article that it was merged from, let alone this one. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Double cross and double cross (betrayal) for more on the mess that that spilled over from. Uncle G (talk) 11:56, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is a notable concept. Note the past AFD's listed include one for this article(ending in snow keep) and two others which were for musical related things totally unrelated to this article. Dream Focus 07:17, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As an important concept, this article can and should be much more than a dictionary definition, as per Uncle G above. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 17:43, 29 September 2010 (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.