Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sycophant

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The result was Speedy Keep as withdrawn by nominator. Andrew (talk) 07:54, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sycophant[edit]

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

Sycophancy, flattery that is very obedient or attentive to an excessive or servile degree, is the concept which is broader and incorporates the term sycophant. It is a powerful social psychological academic concept which fully deserves its own Wikipedia page and should expand in time. I restored it as a redirect, but it was reverted twice. As such, I think it should be either deleted, merged or changed to a redirect. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:14, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator - I realized that that it was a bit inappropriate on my part to nominate it for AFD as what Timtrent pointed out to me. As such, I'm now withdrawing this nomination and proposing a merge at WP:PM. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:27, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Someone could close this as speedy keep then, an appropriate grounds for non-admin closure. I'd do it myself but am reluctant when involved.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 04:14, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep Looking at sycophancy it is on a quite different topic, much shorter and narrower, at least in its current form, and so not a good redirect target. This article has some issues – WP is not a dictionary so the article should not be about the word, but a clear concept is being described - but that's not a grounds for deletion.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 17:28, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, there was a discussion about sycophancy at Talk:Sycophancy#Move_to_Wiktionary a couple of years back. I will expand my rationale. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:31, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is reasonably well written and referenced. The topic is clearly notable, and is a different and distinct topic from sycophancy. There is a significant etymology behind the word. The sycophancy article to which the proposer wants to redirect it is little more than a Wictionary page. Banks Irk (talk) 17:44, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:19, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sycophant ≠ Sycophancy qua articles. The latter reads more like a wiktionary definition than anything, but that is besides the point. AGK [•] 20:14, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Sycophancy and place the resultant article in Sycophancy. The latter article is woefully incomplete, the former is fully fleshed out. There has been some discussion elsewhere of removing the edits of a blocked editor (a policy issue), but we are way past that, I think. Stepping back from that and looking at the encyclopaedia as a whole, it will be better for the combined article, and worse from the deletion of one or other of them. I have not inspected Sycophant to determine its absolute quality. I am relying on a relativey cursory read. Fiddle Faddle 20:40, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have already notified WP:PSYCH about this deletion here, since sycophancy not only encompasses history, but is an important psychological academic concept regardless of whether the topic is different. The best bet, in my opinion, is to simply merge it with the incomplete sycophancy article and expand on it, especially on its psychological views and standpoint. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:16, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to with Sycophancy per WP:NOTDIC. The etymology of the word itself and the history of its use in classical oratory, while relevant and interesting, are only part of the 'sycophant' story. The section 'Shift in meaning in modern English' partially treats the subject of the 'Sycophancy' article. Cnilep (talk) 23:30, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the wonderfully wise and perceptive first few lvoters. The Ancient Greek meaning is separate and distinct from the modern one. The fact that Sycophancy is underdeveloped is a red herring. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:53, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:03, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:05, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:DUH. Even a "cursory" read of the article will show that this is not especially related to sycophancy, although even if it were this subject in itself would be notable. There's no reason for me to provide a list of bunches more sources than are already in the article. One can not only surmise that the nominator hasn't done the duties required in WP:BEFORE, but speculate that perhaps they didn't even really read the article before nominating for deletion.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 03:17, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I apologize if I didn't do either of those requirements, but I did read the article beforehand. I only thought that Sycophancy was related to Sycophant, since it covers a broader topic in psychology, classics and linguistics in general. Unfortunately though, the shift in meaning partially treats the subject of the Sycophancy article. As such, I think a requested merge should be more appropriate in this case. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:21, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to with Sycophancy per WP:NOTDIC. as per Cnilep Lotje (talk) 05:40, 29 January 2014 (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.