Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Latin phrases in A Canticle for Leibowitz


 * 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. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 02:55, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

List of Latin phrases in A Canticle for Leibowitz

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:UNDUE, this is excessive as a sub-page. Also un-sourced. Power~enwiki (talk) 04:01, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:59, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:00, 27 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete Anything truly notable like Imago dei or Te Deum will either be an article or a redirect already. For the rest... Does Google Translate do Latin? Yep, we're good here. Jclemens (talk) 06:04, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Geez, clemens, you used to be an inclusionist. What happened?  173.73.172.102 (talk) 22:56, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * DElete -- It is not apparent from the article the subject of this AFD, but A Canticle for Leibowitz is not a canticle, but a novel; one that I have not read. The analysis of the Latin quotations in the book may indeed be accurate, but that does not make it encyclopedic.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:19, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Peterkingiron, I may never forgive you for this. I was enchanted to discover that there was such a thing as a  A Canticle for Leibowitz in Latin, and had just begun to wonder if it was written to honor Yeshayahu Leibowitz or Jonathan Stuart Leibowitz when you shattered all my delusions.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:42, 29 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Deletio ecce absurdum (okay, so my Latin isn't so hot). The pinnacle of fancruft. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:30, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete as not encyclopedic, despite the fact that I am charmed to discover a novel that I have never heard of, and that is older than almost anyone editing here, has fans who Latinam legere possunt.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:36, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. The meaning of the phrases used in this classic adds much to a deeper understanding of it. The criticism that much is unsourced, however valid it may be, can be easily remedied by the addition of sources, while, on the other hand, sources cannot be added to a non-existent article. The notion that Google translate could replace this article is ludicrous. The rich layers of liturgical, biblical, and classical allusion in this article cannot be explained by any machine translation. Rwflammang (talk) 02:04, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:LIST. This is a trivial list of bona for a barely notable novel. Bearian (talk) 01:40, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Hey! A Hugo Award winner is not a "barely notable novel". Clarityfiend (talk) 07:53, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Then why describe a helpful guide to the Latin in it as "fancruft"? 173.73.172.102 (talk) 22:56, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:IAR. Most of the reasons for deletion are technically correct, but, the big picture tells me that Wikipedia will not be improved by deleting this list.  The translations are accurate and would be helpful to anyone reading Canticle.  A lot of it can be sourced to Prof. Paul Brian's page at WSU (in EL).  173.73.172.102 (talk) 22:56, 2 September 2017 (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.
 * Belated response to the above suggesting I'm an inclusionist. I'm really not, and haven't been.  I just think that the vast majority of things that are brought up for deletion discussion, could, with improvement be perfectly fine articles.  Both 'mergeist' or 'curationist' more accurately depict my bent.  In this case, I simply don't think we need the article. Jclemens (talk) 00:44, 5 September 2017 (UTC)