Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bdelygmia


 * 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. I find User:Cyclopia's reasoning to be persuasive in this case. Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:01, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Bdelygmia

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Contested PROD. Article creator fails to address the primary reason for nomination, which was WP:NOTDICT. Article claims that this is a widely used term in rhetoric: however if this was so the word would be in the OED. Its not. (There is also probably a rhetorical term for using unecessarily long or obscure word when a simple one would do : in this case, "insult".TheLongTone (talk) 17:18, 22 October 2013 (UTC) TheLongTone (talk) 17:18, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is known to be an encyclopedia, which defined by Wikipedia, provides information from all branches of knowledge, rhetoric being on of them. If encyclopedias have been around since medieval times, it seems relevant that an ancient Greek rhetorical device be properly defined on Wikipedia. Just because a word is longer and more obscure does not make it irrelevant. Simply ignoring the term would be ignoring a part of ancient Greek rhetoric. It might be helpful to look at the glossary of rhetorical terms because there are many words on that list that I am sure people have never heard of, but there are still pages about them. Why not provide information about a term like bdelygmia that does not have an existing page? Why should this specific page be deleted but not any of the others on the glossary list? From that long extensive list, it seems like rhetoric is, in fact, a significant topic and its importance can be validated by the vast amount of terms provided by Wikipedia. Jeb253 (talk) 18:15, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Rebuttal


 * Please read the nomination. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. Arguing that there are pages defining other rhetorical terms is an argument for deleting them rather than keeping this article. Additionally the existence of glossary of rhetorical terms is an argument for deleting individual definitions, or rather changing them into redirects to the list.TheLongTone (talk) 18:44, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not arguing to delete anything, I'm proving that because there are other existing pages containing similar ancient Greek rhetorical devices, there should also be a page for this word. I referred to the glossary because it provides extensive proof that rhetoric is relevant to some people. Just because you or someone else has never heard of a word, doesn't mean it is not important. I can almost assert than many people do not know every single Wikipedia entry. That is why Wikipedia is here anyway - to provide people with knowledgeable and even sometimes, new information. What is regarded as important to one person does not hold true for everyone. Jeb253 (talk) 21:04, 22 October 2013 (UTC)


 * For somebody studying rhetoric you have a remarkably poor ability to see the point. I think the article should be deleted because WP is not a dictionary. The argument that an article should be kept because similar articles exist is not valid: in wiki jargon, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Which I was using to counter your argument that because similar articles exist this one should be kept. That I think this word is ludicrous is neither here nor there, btwTheLongTone (talk) 21:22, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:23, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I may have misunderstood you, but I am aware that Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The page I created has more to it than just a simple dictionary entry. I provided credible sources and applied the term with real life examples. I took it a step further by using the word to relate it things people would understand. I understand that Wikipedia is not a dictionary, which is why I clearly and extensively used the word in terms of real life applications. Jeb253 (talk) 21:28, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete It's a dictionary definition followed by a list of examples. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 04:13, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Well of course there is supposed to be a definition of the word in the beginning. I did not just provide examples I used credible and legitimate sources (rhetorical scholars in fact) who explain the use of the word. In addition, these credible sources to explain the history of how violence was used and came about in ancient rhetoric. How is that just giving examples? Jeb253 (talk) 19:14, 23 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep WP:NOTDICT does not mean that articles about words are forbidden, it means that articles shouldn't be mere dictionary definitions. This isn't the case. The article is clearly also about a concept in the field of rhetoric, one that is pretty notable by the way (e.g. ). The article needs a lot of cleanup, but that is not the job of AfDs. -- cyclopia speak! 22:10, 23 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Yes, thank you. There is not merely a definition in the article, but other information that adds depth and meaning to this notable (see above) rhetorical term. Jeb253 (talk) 23:15, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. Article is far more than a dicdef. Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:56, 30 October 2013 (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.