Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of rhetorical terms


 * 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 of the debate was keep. Sjakkalle (Check!)  09:40, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

List of rhetorical terms
Only one word. Not worth it. Compu te  r  Jo  e  21:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as listcruft. Even though it only has only one item (hence, not a list) and the one item doesn't even amount to cruft. Ifnord 21:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. PJM 21:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Lots of room for expansion. Useful reference list.     Dl yo ns 493   Ta lk  21:34, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete When someone can add a score more, re-start it Avi 21:52, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Question Is the main problem the current lack of content? If so, I'll add some as it's a standard area with lots available.  Or have people some more fundimental objection to the list?   Dl yo ns 493   Ta lk  21:59, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep but populate. Rhetoric is an established art with specialized terminology; this is a potentially useful reference. --Muchness 22:09, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Cautiously keep. Besides needing content, it needs a clear definition of "rhetorical terms." Crunch 01:19, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Have a look at Zeugma -feedback appreciated.  Dl yo ns 493   Ta lk  01:41, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete "Lots of room for expansion" barely begins to describe the pathetic state of this article. Come back when we can list ten terms. Keep There are now more than ten items. Thanks for the expansion, Matt. D e nni  &#9775;  02:08, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Don't think so, thanks :-) Dl yo ns 493   Ta lk  03:44, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep if somebody promises they are going to work on it in the near future. According to its talk page, it's intended as part of a a rhetorics wikiportal, so I suppose there must be some previously established contributor interest? Delimitation of the topic area is not a problem; rhetorics is a very well-defined scholarly area with a long tradition, and "lists of rhetorical terms" abound in the literature. There are even specialist dictionaries of rhetorical terms. This is definitely a useful idea for a page, and I think the list page is also superior to a category-based alternative in this case, as per Categories, lists, and series boxes. Lukas (T. 08:13, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: I now see there already is a Category "Figures of Speech", but the two domains are probably not exactly identical, although they will overlap. Lukas (T. 08:33, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. This list appears to be a list that would be permanently incomplete and may have been created just for the purpose of having such a list. In other words, it is listcruft. Stifle 12:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. We have plenty of articles on rhetorical terms (chiasmus, euphemism, anaphora etc.) and there should be some central place to reach them.
 * I just left a message on the creator's talk page after he left a message on mine complaining about the move (from "Glossary" to "list" which I felt was more fitting). He definitely has plans to expand it, and I ought to help. Daniel Case 17:02, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong keep. After reading the creator's plans, it is clear to me that this list would be an excellent addition to the encyclopedia. I hope he and his students are not harrassed away.  Maybe Wikipedia should have a policy about the treatment of newcomers. -Acjelen 18:31, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * (Note: This is from the creator, who moved the article back to "Glossary of rhetorical terms" and posted this here. Daniel Case 17:51, 24 January 2006 (UTC))

I'm not certain why this page was nominated for deletion, but perhaps the issue can be resolved if I explain my rationale for creating the page. I am Matt Barton, an English professor who has been using wikis in teaching for some years now. This semester, I had the idea of having the graduate students in my rhetorical theory course build a Rhetoric Portal for wikipedia--one that would match the quality of the Philosophy philosophy wikiportal. As part of the project, I wanted the class to create a glossary of terms that are frequently found in rhetorical treatises. This glossary would consist of rhetorical terms with brief, one-line definitions, with all the terms linking to full-page articles (that the class will work to develop as the semester progresses). My plan is to use the Rhetoric Wikiportal as a "homebase," if you will, for developing and extending the rhetorical theory coverage at the wikipedia. If this page is deleted, it may negatively impact a class that is already struggling with "the whole wiki thing," if you will, and probably undercut their confidence in me.

Thanks, --Matt 17:36, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete - I can't see what this unmanageable page can do better than a catagory. Ian13ID:540053 21:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Perhaps the answer is: the same thing that other people have felt could be done well through pages like Glossary of library and information science terms, Glossary of spirituality-related terms, Glossary of the Third Reich, Topology glossary, Glossary of differential geometry and topology, etc., etc.? Look for more of these things under Category:Glossaries or List of glossaries. They are all over the place. If there's one scholarly discipline that's really pre-destined to have such a thing, it's classical rhetorics (a closed body of established, classical knowledge; terminology in widespread use across several neighbouring disciplines but partly inaccessible to the non-specialist due to its Latinate/Greek roots; useful combination of short definition within list page with more detailed explanation in main articles; pure listing of article titles on a category page would be opaque to the non-specialist.) - And why "unmanagable", for heaven's sake? It's a closed, stable, well-circumscribed field, and many of the articles are already there. It took me twenty minutes this morning to add half a dozen entries. I estimate the full page might grow to a hundred or so. Compare that with the Glossary of spirituality-related terms quoted above, which is huuuuge! Lukas (T. 21:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep&mdash;I think a thematic organization would work better than an alphabetical organization, but either way, the article should stay. --Macrakis 03:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep&mdash;It's a good resource. Ideally, it would have both an alphabetical and a thematic order (repetition, inversion, logic, trope, scheme, etc.)DigitalMedievalist 03:35, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Seems to be a good way of organizing articles on rhetoric terms. --Carnildo 07:34, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep: and adjust the focus so that the list also includes terms and concepts from the intersections of rhetoric and writing studies, rhetoric and communications studies, rhetoric and speech, visual rhetoric, etc. If this were only a list of "pure" rhetorical terms, it is duplicating an extensive existing website, which though not a wiki, is still the primary online resource and likely to remain so.  The value of a wikipedia entry to me would be the ways that contributors can help expand our sense of / understanding of "rhetoric." This unsigned comment was added by new anonymous IP user 216.188.244.155 at 14:49, 25 January 2006. Moved into sequence by Lukas (T. 13:57, 25 January 2006 (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.