Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Character (word)


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Character (word)

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

Extensive etymologies, especially those that cover multiple meanings of a word, belong in a dictionary, not an encyclopedia. Powers T 12:57, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and move to character (symbol). This seems to contain information that goes well beyond a dictionary definition, of a sort that does not belong in a dictionary.  Using "word" as a disambiguator and containing an "etymology" heading seem to be the chief flaws; so I changed "etymology" to "history" and voilà!  'tis fixed.  Besides that, I find this article interesting, and despite that essay, being interesting is not a flaw. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:04, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * keep of course, merge or move discussions are welcome on the article talkpage. As for "Extensive etymologies, especially those that cover multiple meanings of a word, belong in a dictionary, not an encyclopedia", see our Category:Etymologies, and especially my note here. --dab (𒁳) 14:17, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Regardless of all that, Wikipedia policy is quite clear: "In some cases, a word or phrase itself may be an encyclopedic subject, such as Macedonia (terminology) or truthiness, but encyclopedia articles rarely contain multiple distinct definitions or usages of a term." That latter clause describes this article to a tee, and I see no compelling reason to make it one of those rare exceptions (which, in fact, are not all that rare it seems).  Powers T 19:25, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * keep I don't see any policy reason to remove it, and it's a nice article. Not opposed to moving it. Verbal   chat  14:24, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions.  -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  15:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per Smerdis and dab. —Angr 15:41, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep or move per discussion above. Perfectly encyclopedic article, links together many others. No policy that would require its removal. Bearian (talk) 17:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * We already have an article that links together the various meanings of the word. It's at Character.  Powers T 01:19, 7 April 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.