Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Umbrella term

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 redirect to Hyponymy and hypernymy. And merge from history where needed. Sandstein 13:06, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Umbrella term[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)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, a textbook, or a publisher of original thought. Covers two different subjects. It seems like the page was written by an amateur lexicographer attempting to instruct readers about these terms by referencing their own personal experience with the terms, a copyrighted dictionary, and one citation of a Chicago Tribune article in which a medical doctor happened to say that glaucoma is "a broad term for a number of different conditions that damage the optic nerve" a quote which someone thought was enough verification to include it on an otherwise uncited list. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 01:08, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The word "umbrella term" has been useful on Wikipedia, and we can see sources in the links above using the term. But if there are no reliable sources, or barely any, discussing use of the term itself, deletion is probably best. We do have articles about terms, but we employ WP:WORDISSUBJECT for that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:11, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If deleted, I do think that the page should point to the Wiktionary entry. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:19, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:54, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the term is used quite a bit (Google Books claims 313000 results for "Umbrella term", with everything from "think tank" to "Asian American" to "learning disability" described as one), but I'm struggling to find anything other than a dictionary definition about the term. Not sure that specific examples would be the basis for an article. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:15, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:15, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to hypernym. According to this, this, this and this, it should probably redirect to hypernym. Looks like an unintentional WP:CSPLIT (content split) ie. two articles on the same topic. "Umbrella term" is a metaphor while hypernym the linguistic term. Hypernym is found in dictionaries like Oxford but umbrella term is not. -- GreenC 04:50, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No compliance with WP:Before, which sets up a set of hurdles before proposing deletion; and an agenda for handling the question. Article can be improved. Sources exist. Content can be expanded. Useful subject and day-to-day concept. That article needs improvement is not a reason to delete it. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:40, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can recognize the desire to save articles at all cost because deletionists can be overzealous etc.. But in this case, how do you reconcile this article with hypernym? Two articles on the same exact topic. "Umbrella" is just a metaphorical alternative name for hypernym, a slang term for the same thing. What would this article contain that wouldn't belong in the other article? If there were sources that discussed the metaphor itself with society, not just using the metaphor but discussing the metaphor (not the meaning of the metaphor, the metaphor itself), I might agree. Can you provide those sources? Otherwise it's a parallel article to hypernym which goes against WP:CSPLIT (content split) --GreenC 18:20, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't thought of hypernym when seeing this article nominated. I did think of "catch-all" (which was a Wikipedia article until recently), because I've seen "umbrella term" replaced with "catch-all" on Wikipedia before. If the article is redirected to the Hyponymy and hypernymy article, it should be mentioned and bolded somewhere in there so that editors know that they've arrived at the right article and so that there is an explanation about the term. MOS:BOLD and all that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:17, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes bold name at the top .. this is supported by reliable source see this, this, this and this (there are more) -- they directly assert "Umbrella term" and hypernym are the same. Not just merely giving similar definitions, but directly asserting the two terms are the same thing. -- GreenC 07:59, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge The general concept appears in works such as Umbrella Reviews: Evidence Synthesis with Overviews of Reviews and Meta-Epidemiologic Studies; aming the Standards: A Commonsense Approach to Higher Student Achievement; Creating Classrooms for Authors and Inquirers . Other sources such as this talk of Molar (broad) The mian point of WP:DICDEF is not that we should delete short articles but that we should group topics together conceptually, rather than by word and title. Andrew D. (talk) 14:04, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

we should group topics together conceptually, rather than by word and title - agreed. See comments above. "Umbrella term" is a metaphor of the linguistic term hypernym for which we already have an in-depth article. Otherwise please explain why this article is not a content split (CSPLIT), what it contains that is not already in hypernym. -- GreenC 14:50, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Agreeing that Wikipedia is not a dictionary or the like, but we nevertheless have a vast number of articles about terminology, and this one in particular is often used (quite a lot in academia too). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:41, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The argument that we have a vast number of articles about terminology is irrelevant. So is how often the term is used. What matters is if there are sources that discuss the concept in depth. --Lambiam 19:30, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but Wikipedia has a clear policy about WP:CSPLIT, this article is a copy of the same subject covered in hypernym. What would this article contain that is not already contained in hypernym? Umbrealla is a metaphor for hypernym. We don't create separate articles for the various metaphors of everything it makes no sense. -- GreenC 16:31, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I intend to update the article and the sources. They are not synonymous, although arguably hypernym (a specialized term used mainly by linguists) fits under the [[umbrella term}} (a more generally used phrase). 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:39, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The sources directly assert they are synonymous. There is no difference in the meaning. -- GreenC 19:48, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are other sources, and they feature nuanced defintiions. And you haven't addressed the difference between a technically used term by a narrow population, and a popular term used more generally. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:57, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a 'nuanced definition' is probably saying the same thing in so many words. It's fine to have a separate article about a metaphor and the precise term. But you still have to demonstrate there are sources specific about the metaphor itself, otherwise it's a content split, the same topic in two articles. A POV split as well. -- GreenC 21:46, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. Working on it. I've done the research, but I've got to add the content and references. Lots to coalesce. Real life intrudes, and it will be a couple of days. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 00:06, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

7&6=thirteen, perhaps Mr. Guye did do a WP:Before job, but, like the rest of us, saw that the term was being used without the term/topic being defined. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:11, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sheldybett (talk) 02:27, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:28, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hypernym. Both articles cover the same topic, and if all of the unsourced content were removed from Umbrella term there would be nothing useable left to merge. –dlthewave ☎ 20:51, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hyponymy and hypernymy (which is the redirect target of Hypernym) per Dlthewave. The article contains a short description in the lead section, and the rest is a mostly unsourced list of examples. — Newslinger talk 10:15, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect It is not an article on its own, I too believe it's better redirect to Hyponymy and hypernymy Alex-h (talk) 16:17, 30 December 2018 (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.