Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terra pericolosa

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 delete. At this point all the arguments are for delete except for one conditional transwikify, and there is no evidence that the condition is met. Rlendog (talk) 17:39, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Terra pericolosa[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Nothing more than a dictionary definition, and I don't see any potential for it becoming more than that. There's no doubt this term was used, but it doesn't seem to be a notable concept on its own, given the lack of significant coverage. An alternative deletion would be to merge it, maybe with Here be dragons - according to this article, terra pericolosa was normally used for the purpose that many people believe that hic sunt dracones was used (but it wasn't). Or into some kind of glossary of cartography, but we don't seem ot have that. Lennart97 (talk) 19:18, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 19:18, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 19:18, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If this were sourced, I would suggest merging into Here be dragons#History where alternative phrases are already discussed. But I cannot find a reference verifying that this was ever used in real cartography – only fictional stories and poems. SpinningSpark 08:19, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I found this article but I doubt it meets our reliability requirements. It is a one-woman site and I suspect that a lot of the information came from Wikipedia anyway. Although not a straight copy, there is some close paraphrasing and the depth of infomation is precisely what could be gleaned from various Wikipedia articles. In any event, no sources are listed. SpinningSpark 09:13, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just noticed that this is the same article linked in the nom. SpinningSpark 09:15, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your remarks. Yes, I was a bit too optimistic when I said "there's no doubt this term was used"; I based that notion mostly on that article, which indeed isn't necessarily reliable. If we can in fact not verify that the term was ever used, I guess deletion is the only option. Lennart97 (talk) 09:45, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How about Transwikify to dictionary, if any one can establish that the term really exists. I have on one occasion had to write that an archaeological site (in woodland) contains upcapped mine shafts and that people should accordingly not attempt to enter it (which would amount to trespass anyway). Peterkingiron (talk) 18:54, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh it really exists, just not as a genuine historic cartography term. Wiktionary requires neither notability nor reliability of sources, merely that they use the term and are "durably archived". But this would have a few other problems at Wiktionary. First of all, as a Wiktionary entry, our article is "too encyclopaedic" (ie too long) as well as apparently being an inaccurate definition. More importantly, phrases are not allowed on Wiktionary that are merely sum-of-parts. One would have to be able to argue that a user could not divine the meaning from the entries for terra and pericolosa alone. It's generally best to write Wiktionary pages from scratch rather than dump a transwikied Wikipedia article there. The former usually goes down a lot better. SpinningSpark 23:05, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There's certainly any amount of transferred use of the term - [1],[2], [3] - all of which assume the stated cartographic origin; but I can't find any authoritative discussion of where it comes from and whether it really was in use. Given the age of our article, it's entirely possible that e.g. the source noted in the OP is based on WP rather than anything better founded. No dictionary entries, except one that openly cites WP. It really doesn't look as if there is sufficient sourcing to even include this as a mention at Here be dragons. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:30, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on the grounds that it is a made up term used by fiction writers and artists. It therefore falls under WP:NOTDIC. I'll withdraw that if there is any evidence forthcoming that it is a genuine cartographic term, or there is otherwise sources substantially discussing its use in art/literature. SpinningSpark 02:48, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cannot find a reliable source discussing the phrase in any depth (as Spinningspark said, the Geographyrealm source is questionable). It doesn't seem to appear in any published dictionary from what I could find online. Fails WP:GNG and WP:V. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:26, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just to be clear: as the nominator, though initially suggesting a merge, I am now also in favour of deletion based on the points brought up above. Lennart97 (talk) 13:32, 17 November 2021 (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.