Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/-cide


 * 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. possibly more suitable to dictionary, not Wikipedia per consensus Nja 247 10:36, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

-cide

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Encyclopedia articles are supposed to be on a unitary topic. However the -cide article is a purely lexical, word-ending based, stubby dictionary article that has no realistic chance of expansion. The wikipedia is not a dictionary.

The article is also unsourced, as the only source listed does not seem to be a Reliable source.

This is a list article in all but name, and worse, a list of simple words. The associated wiktionary article has coverage that is better, dictionaries are word based, whereas encyclopedias are based on general or abstract concepts. The only concept displayed here is associated with pure words. The principle is that the wikipedia should not have single fact articles (like: most words ending in 'cide' are to do with killing things). The article contains a large number of distinct definitions of very different things, whereas well formed articles only have one central all encompassing definition; these are not all the same thing, they are related only by the lexical element; the telling point here is that other words that involve death or killing like 'hanging' are not included. That's because this is not an article on a well formed encyclopedic topic; for example the Encyclopedia Britannica does not seem to have an article on this 'topic'.

Even if you were to think that it's a useful article to have (that it should be kept because its useful is an invalid argument: Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions) the wikipedia is not a guidebook to the English language.

Additionally, the article title violates WP:MOS, article titles are supposed to be nouns or noun phrase. The article should either be merged with suffix or moved to become a general article on killing things or deleted.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 06:32, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe Keep I was going to vote delete. But the suffix "-cide" is a thing, and the article on it is informative. Steve Dufour (talk) 14:45, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * But it's easy to merge that (extremely small) 'thing' with the other suffixes and make a legitimate article. This isn't a legitimate article; encyclopedias don't do lists of words, that's what dictionaries are.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 15:46, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. Special:WhatLinksHere/Affix shows multiple articles with similar content: -scope, -cracy, -graphy(AfD), -kinesis(AfD), -nik and so on. It may be worth to take a look at their deletion reviews or reevaluate their status depending on the outcome of this AfD. — Rankiri (talk) 17:12, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep This is   a list of Wikipedia articles. List articles are included as a guide to other articles, and their usefulness as a guide is a main criterion, so the argument of "useful" seems appropriate to me. I think it is in fact a good list; if you think it should be replaced by a more comprehensive list on the general topic of killing, write one. ICOULDDOITBETTER is not an argument. We are not limited to what's in the EB, or there would be relatively little point in the whole project DGG (talk) 17:50, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it isn't even a list of wikipedia articles, it's a list of words. Lots of the words end up at duplicate articles; almost everything is multiply linked. For example insecticide and adulticide, gendercide and femicide which were literally the first two that came to hand.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 19:26, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * And the it's useful argument is not a valid argument in deletion reviews; and even more so when the entire article is already in the wiktionary. The wikipedia is NOT a dictionary.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 19:26, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This excuse for an article rips up every single MOS guideline and most of the policies as well.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 19:26, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I mean what are we going to do next, have all the words beginning with particular word-roots, like 'part-'? Or how about all the words starting with 'f-'? How non encyclopedic can you get?- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 19:31, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 19:40, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete. WP:NOTDIC. The article doesn't seem to have the encyclopedic potential to go beyond its Wiktionary counterpart. — Rankiri (talk) 19:58, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. "-cide" is not a word, it's a suffix. Encyclopedias do have lists, of course, as does ours. Now, the list in this article, I would have no objection to someone deleting that, but the suffix itself is worthy of inclusion (not a dictionary definition--think of it as an operator). Wolfkeeper, this is not something to be taken personally. I know the guidelines, as do some of the other editors who've responded above. I am not voting keep because I like it or because it fits in with my possibly Republican leanings. Drmies (talk) 21:06, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete or soft-redirect to Wiktionary. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, this duplicates -cide. No prejudice against an encyclopaedic article about the "-cide" suffix, but this is just a list of words. Enyclopedias do have lists, but they have lists like List of Scheduled Monuments in Greater Manchester, not List of words that have the suffix -cide. The latter is what belongs in a dictionary or thesaurus, both of which functions are provided by Wiktionary. Thryduulf (talk) 21:53, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You say correctly that there should be no prejudice "against an encyclopaedic article about the "-cide" suffix"--well, here you have an an encyclopaedic article about the "-cide" suffix. Is it a bad article? Sure--but fix it then. Deletion policy says it quite clearly: "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion." The article is actually a bit more than a list: there are three salvageable sentences in there. Drmies (talk) 00:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see any possibility that it will be enlarged in an encyclopedic fashion, and even if it was enlarged, it would still not be encyclopedic- it would be about a word part, not a subject. Even the reference in the article points to a dictionary.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 13:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Just to try to ram home why suffixes are probably not a good idea consider that the wikipedia doesn't currently have the -ful suffix.(see ) Why not? I don't know, but the fact that it's used to make adjectives, and there's no adjective articles might have something to do with it. I mean, there's loads of suffixes, should they all have their own article, and list of words? Are lists of words encyclopedic? Or should the suffixes just be at Suffix? I think so.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 22:12, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * And don't forget all the suffixes from languages, time periods and dialects other than contemporary standard modern English. Thryduulf (talk) 00:33, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Wiktionary seems to have everything I've looked for so far. You'd think they would have. For example all the latin suffixes are mentioned here: Wiktionary:Category:Latin_derivations- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 01:22, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: the list is gone, and I've added a source. More could be found easily, of course. Drmies (talk) 01:03, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Wiktionary specifically lists prefixes and suffixes as acceptable for inclusion. I have not found anything that permits them to be valid wikipedia article titles or subjects, and several things suggest to me that they are inherently unencyclopedic.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 10:30, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Under encyclopedia rules (WP:NOTADICT), -cide seems to be a duplicate or part of death, and the rules call for it to merge.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 13:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Textbook case of Not A Dictionary.  Powers T 15:10, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Recall this related discussion from May 2009: Articles for deletion/"-cides" Cnilep (talk) 21:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. The topic is already covered at Wiktionary. Neither the current content nor the prior list format seem like a good fit at Suffix. Killing redirects to Homicide, so obviously that won't work, either. I can think of no good rationale for keeping the page or its content. Cnilep (talk) 21:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: FWIW this also came up back in 2004 with many similar comments but nobody pushed it through:Wikipedia_talk:Things_to_be_moved_to_Wiktionary.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 00:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. As Powers states, there is no way this could be more in violation of WP:NAD. yandman  11:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete More suited to a dictionary. Orderinchaos 11:51, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. WP:NOTDICT Niteshift36 (talk) 05:51, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 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.