Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/In situ

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. (non-admin closure) Anarchyte (work | talk) 06:32, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In situ[edit]

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

This collection of dictionary definitions (tagged as such since 2012) falls foul of WP:NOTDICT. There may be material here for Wiktionary. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:38, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Wikt:in situ is a dictionary definition. This article with its 16711 characters (2730 words) "readable prose size" is not. — Sam Sailor 11:51, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

With all respect, mere size does not demonstrate that something isn't a definition, though there is one difference here: this article is a list of many definitions. That says the term is used (in many similar ways) in different fields. But it's still a term, and dictionaries properly list meanings with numbered headings: Wikipedia articles should not. Pretty much every section of the article says that in situ is a term, and offers a local definition of it: great for Wiktionary and othr dictionaries, terrible for an encyclopedia. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:24, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, mere size doesn't do it, but it still is a case of WP:WORDISSUBJECT where the key is "... such articles must go beyond what would be found in a dictionary entry (definition, pronunciation, etymology, use information, etc.), and include information on the social or historical significance of the term.", and unsuitable for Wiktionary per wikt:Wiktionary:What Wiktionary is not, and it is not a list of many definitions. — Sam Sailor 13:43, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 11:52, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 11:52, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A list of the ways that a phrase is used in different fields is still a dictionary definition, regardless of how long it is. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 16:15, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a list. — Sam Sailor 13:43, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation. Add the content to relevant articles, make it a disambiguation page linking to those articles. Prevalence 04:40, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguate? Disambiguate how? — Sam Sailor 13:43, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 00:56, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is not especially concerned with dictionary matters such as the etymology or grammar of the term. The bulk of the content explains how the concept applies in various fields. The concept appears in the title of numerous works such as In Situ Hybridization Histochemistry; Plant Genetic Conservation: The in situ approach; In Situ Assessment of Structural Timber; In Situ Remediation Engineering; &c. The concept is therefore quite important and a high-level page of this kind is helpful in bringing such common ideas together somewhat like a dab page. Andrew D. (talk) 01:35, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Andrew D.: this article is about the concept, not the word. --Arxiloxos (talk) 03:31, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think referring to this article as a dictionary definition, or even a "list of the ways that a phrase is used", is a mischaracterization. Though there are indeed some listings that might be considered definitions, that's more a reason to expand those particular sections with a better discussion of how the concept is applied in that field than it is a reason to delete the whole article. Gnome de plume (talk) 21:39, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm also not seeing a WP:DICDEF here. This is a notable concept in many fields and for the most part the individual sections are encyclopaedic, though perhaps a few of the more obvious ones could do to be trimmed out. Joe Roe (talk) 01:53, 19 December 2016 (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.