Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fewmets


 * 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 redirect to Feces. There's reasonably good consensus here that this should not be a stand-alone article. Beyond that, there's a range of opinions about how best to make it go away. WP:ATD argues against delete, and I've somewhat arbitrarily picked a redirect target. If somebody wants to move the redirect, or mine the old article for material to merge somewhere, go for it. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:48, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Fewmets

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:NOTDIC -- not to mention that the etymological info is entirely unsourced. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 04:09, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. Even if it can be sourced, it's a dicdef. --Michig (talk) 08:22, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep While I can see the dicdef point somewhat, and am more often on the side of dismissing simple vocabulary terms from WP, I think this term merits an article, especially in an encyclopedia that includes the articles Death threat, Headlight flashing, and Car door. The article's writing certainly wants improvement, and it could be expanded with references to the term's historical use. The etymology is from or parallel with related French terms. Don't have time right now to cite everything, but for the moment, see in the OED fumet and fumishing, in a French dictionary fumées and fumier, and on Google Books fewmets and fumets. Eric talk 14:26, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The existence of the articles you mentioned is irrelevant to whether or not this article should exist. The etymology bit I mentioned was really just an afterthought and is really also irrelevant anyway, even if it can be reliably sourced.  You say the article could be expanded to include historical uses, but that's for a dictionary, not an encyclopedia.  –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 05:08, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep This does not resemble a dictionary entry and, even if it did, that wouldn't be a reason to delete. And the topic is notable and so there is plenty more to say about it – see Bodies in the Hunt or The Art of Hunting. Andrew D. (talk) 17:49, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Of course it resembles a dictionary entry – it gives the definition and then a few historic uses of it. But the simple fact that the word has been used doesn't mean it's notable .  On the other hand, if you want an article on animal droppings, there's already Spoor (animal).  If you think that animal droppings used in hunting could merit an article in addition to Spoor (animal) (which is doubtful; that's such a short article and could easily accommodate more content), such an article most definitely should not be named "Fewmets" because it's an obsolete word itself.  And in any case, there's no significant content here to start with.  –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 05:08, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 05:12, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 05:12, 21 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Merge to Spoor (animal). There's encyclopedic value here, and likely more in hunting literature, but that T.H. White quotation can't carry an article (and is anyway over-long and needs to be summarized). - On that note, I have removed the spurious fantasy reference - L'Engle artfully using the word "fewmets" to avoid "dragon shit" doesn't make this a frequently-used term in fantastic literature (evidence to the contrary is welcome; I have never seen it and I could tile my yard with fantasy novels). -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:18, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I have no objection to this being redirected there, but there's really nothing to merge. It's just an archaic term for animal faeces. --Michig (talk) 15:22, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment re spoor It may well just be a dictionary definition, and I could see merging it with another term that refers to droppings in the context of tracking or hunting, such as scat. As Scat is currently a redirect to Feces, we might consider merging Fewmets to a new section -- maybe in Feces -- to distinguish the use of the terms scat and fewmets from the rest of the crap there (sorry, the adolescent in me can't resist) and to present the concept of studying feces for tracking purposes. I don't think the spoor article is the place, as neither the OED nor the AHD makes any mention of droppings in their definitions of that term. Oh, and, I have you beat: my pet dragon's cavern walls are tiled with fantasy novels. Eric talk 18:52, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:50, 25 January 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: For evaluation of redirect-target....

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Winged Blades Godric  04:24, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Redirect to feces, perhaps Feces per WP:NOTDICTIONARY. This 'article' is just an archaic version of "in popular culture", i.e. uses of the word Fewmet. Should any articles need to use the word fewmet, it can probably simply be defined in text (e.g. "the hunter followed the fewmets (animal droppings) of his quarry"), or transwikilinked to fewmet, rather than link to an 'article' that merely says the same, plus a grab bag of literary uses. Similarly, Spoor (animal) could probably be eventually merged eventually into an article on animal tracking/hunting/identifying, at which point Fewmet might also redirect there. --Animalparty! (talk) 05:52, 2 February 2018 (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.