Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erudition


 * 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. Clear consensus not to retain article, no consensus and a level of disagreement about a soft redirect. Daniel (talk) 01:31, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Erudition

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Article discusses only the term "erudition", not the topic of erudition itself. See WP:NOTADICT. Article is entirely unreferenced and seems to be WP:OR. It's not readily apparent to me that either the term "erudition" or the concept of erudition itself are notable topics passing WP:GNG. Even if such a case can be made, none of the current content is useable, so WP:TNT applies. Daask (talk) 14:25, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Daask (talk) 14:25, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Daask (talk) 14:25, 28 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:TNT. It is a little more than a dictionary definition; unfortunately, what it adds to the definition is not encyclopedia material. We get an argument-from-etymology fallacy, a bit of personal opinion, and a paragraph of "I, too, majored in Western Lit". It's all unsourced (tagged as such since 2012!), and if sources for the claims of fact were dug up, it would be WP:SYNTH. Improving the article to the point where it would be worth keeping would amount to rewriting it from scratch. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 15:40, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. Sure needs some attention and sources, but other than that a perfectly valid and relevant article to exist. I also disagree with the sentiment that none of the current content is usable. Why exactly not? --Gharren (talk) 07:16, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Because it's meandering, unsourced, personal opinion. Not a line of it lives up to encyclopedic standards. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:07, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Soft redirect to Wiktionary, considering the alternatives to deletion. It's a word whose meaning has some interesting nuances, good for a dictionary, but not an article. There are various related topics (Education, Intellectual, Liberal arts education), but "erudition" isn't exactly any one of them, while the vague place in between is not a real standalone topic. The page views as well as the unhelpfulness of most search results suggest that it's worth keeping around as a redirect. Adumbrativus (talk) 10:59, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Soft redirect to Wiktionary.4meter4 (talk) 05:27, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per XOR&#39;easter. Soft redirects are appropriate only if they are useful to users of the encyclopedia, which I see no evidence for, otherwise this is a case wher WP:ATD specifically does not apply: see WP:R. &mdash; Charles Stewart (talk) 11:39, 8 July 2021 (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.