Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Afflatus


 * 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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Afflatus

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

In my opinion, this article is a violation of WP:NOT, because it's a definition of a word. It does not significantly expand on the content of the Wiktionary entry -. The term "Romantic Afflatus" has been widely used, but I'm not sure whether it meets general inclusion requirements, and there's a good discussion of the concept at Artistic inspiration. If "Romantic Afflatus" is a suitable topic for an article, it do not believe it should be under this title, because Cicero's one metaphorical use of the word "Afflatus" is a separate matter to the concept. Claritas (talk) 17:55, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep I cannot understand why this is nominated for deletion. It explains very well and little known term that is a blue link (proving its need) in several articles.  Giacomo   18:00, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep -- obviously encyclopedic. Compare the brief Wiktionary entry with our short but useful article.  No need to banish such clearly useful things to Wiktionary. Antandrus  (talk) 18:09, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep – Has Wolfkeeper finally managed to convince someone else of their eccentric interpretation of WP:NOT? But that still doesn't change the fact that we keep articles on words if and only if they are notable. Hans Adler 18:55, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - this discussion seems to be an example of WP:ITSNOTABLE. Can anyone provide evidence for "Afflatus" being notable as a concept, outside of "Romantic Afflatus" ? Claritas (talk) 20:00, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I rather think it is up to you to provide reasons why the page should be deleted, not the other way around. It's a valuable link and a useful subject to be able to refer to. I suggest this is closed now as speedy kep.  Giacomo   20:39, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, the term and concept has been a bit out of fashion for a while. In fact, at some point between 1853 and 1911 it was dropped from Encyclopedia Britannica. But we don't have the space restrictions of a printed encyclopedia. Hans Adler 22:47, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with Giacomo's "speedy keep", under the snowball clause. Articles about words that appear in Wiktionary should never come to AfD.  If there's something encyclopaedic to say, we should say it, and if there isn't, then we should have a soft redirect to Wiktionary.  But with an article about a word, the one thing that we should never do is delete it and leave a redlink that encourages an inexperienced user to write an article.  That's just creating a rod for our own backs, frankly.  Also, in terms of standard Wikipedian guidelines, this is a speedy keep because it fails WP:BEFORE.  WP:BEFORE says we can't delete material unless we've exhausted the alternatives to deletion.  In this case, a soft redirect to Wiktionary is an alternative that we clearly haven't exhausted.  So even if "Afflatus" isn't notable, I'm quite satisfied that this nomination has no chance of success.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  22:55, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree with SM's reasoning, and suggest we actually make a rule to that effect.  DGG ( talk ) 00:06, 18 May 2010 (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.