Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Humane


 * 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. I'm somewhat surprised, but, the consensus is pretty clear. If anyone can think of a logical redirect, please create it. Courcelles 04:38, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Humane

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This article as it stands is a dictionary entry. I see no prospect for it being anything else. Adjectives in general are bad titles for articles. Also I can't think of a canonical place to redirect. Trovatore (talk) 20:27, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; this is a thesaurus entry. Carrite (talk) 20:52, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * humanity is one redirection target that springs to mind. Uncle G (talk) 21:51, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Right, but it's not canonical. You could make equally good arguments for several other pages.  That being the case, I don't see any real reason to have a redirect.  People should not be wikilinking the word humane at all, and if it's deleted, the "Go" box will bring up search results, which is probably the most appropriate thing that can happen. --Trovatore (talk) 22:00, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Another, even more obvious one, is humaneness, the ethical concept of which we have at ren (Confucianism). Uncle G (talk) 23:02, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Not supposed to have redirects to redlinks. I do hope no one will start a humaneness article just to find a target for it; that's not a good reason for an article.  And obviously it's fairly improbable that a link to the word humane would be intending a concept specific to Confucianism.  I don't see why you're quibbling on this; it seems to me that the obvious and clean solution is delete and de-link.  Links to an adjective that's a common English word are almost always out of place, unless some technical sense is intended. --Trovatore (talk) 23:07, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I think this is a CONCEPT worthy of a Wikipedia entry, and not precisely defined by any other word or verb or abstract noun (humaneness is an abstract noun but I think a topic on 'humane' would suffice and be more likely to be searched if one was looking for information on the topic). A dictionary or thesaurus does not give the level of information that is required or desired for one searching for information for such a thing. We should have an article on what the definition of 'humane' is followed by different groups of people's understanding, ethics, practices, religious practices etc. are based on being humane. I move that this page should be resurrected. User:Kateaclysmic — Preceding undated comment added 11:57, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete as Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Armbrust  Talk  Contribs  23:21, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete This entry is a glorified definition. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. HeartSWild (talk) 10:39, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete (move to wiktionary)  ℳ ono   15:36, 2 September 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.