Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Homage


 * 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. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  00:12, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Homage

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Declined WP:PROD Prod reasoning was that Wikipedia is not a dictionary and this word already has an entry at Wiktionary. Subsequent editing since the prod was declined does not seem to have rectified this issue, it's just an expanded definition. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:13, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Clear case of "not a dictionary." The article is clearly about the word, not the concept.  In fact as the word has evolved it has changed meaning at least twice, as recorded in the article. Borock (talk) 21:44, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep if the article is going to be about the artistic concept, with background on the word. Borock (talk) 03:20, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Historically, this article has been little more than a dicdef, this much is true. That said, I think that the original topic of the article (the artistic use of homage, particularly in literature and film) really warrants, even needs, an article. The practice of artistic homage has a long and certainly encyclopedic history that connects to but is distinct from concepts like Intertextuality, Pastiche, etc. which this article once linked to and situated its contents among. Unfortunately, the article that this should be just hasn't been written yet, and I don't have the time to create it. Instead of deleting, however, I suggest we hold off for now and perhaps try to get some attention from Wikiproject:Films or some others who might be able to add content. Wikipedia is still pretty weak in articles about vaguely-defined artistic devices, as these can be more difficult to develop than articles about individual works of art, but there are plenty of published materials on these devices. So, if this is deleted now, the article should be re-created later on and given the substance that it currently lacks. Feeeshboy (talk) 23:40, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The article is a WP:STUB not a dictionary definition. It is easy to expand as I shall demonstrate.  The nominator's complaint about "subsequent editing since the prod was declined" is feeble as the nomination was made within 10 minutes of the prod being removed and without any discussion on the article's talk page. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:23, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for rescue by the Article Rescue Squadron.    Snotty Wong   squeal 00:50, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep A notable concept, not just a simple definition.  D r e a m Focus  01:15, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep this well-sourced stub about a notable concept. It was ugly and a difdef, but has been improved per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 15:51, 5 October 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.