Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Macabre


 * 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. Vandalism in March removed much of the content. I have reverted the vandalism. The dicdef nomination is therefore probably moot.  Sandstein  21:14, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Macabre

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

WP:Dicdef with only definition and "uncertain" etymology. As the word has little definite background and describes an artistic quality rather than a movement, there is probably little room for expansion. Propose a history merge with macabre (disambiguation). Potatoswatter (talk) 07:19, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. The paper encyclopedia Store Norske Leksikon has an encyclopedia entry on the Norwegian counterpart "makaber" (although their article is very short), so it is clearly "encyclopedic" in the sense that an encyclopedia has covered it. Our article is in fact pretty good in that it covers the etymology in some detail, along with examples of macabre work which account for its current name. When this discussion is longer than a paragraph, we are outside the dictionary realm, and it should not be in a disambiguation. Sjakkalle (Check!)  13:30, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * But it isn't longer than a paragraph. Potatoswatter (talk) 18:10, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, the etymology section is a long paragraph, and the article as a whole is more than a paragraph. Sjakkalle (Check!)  13:35, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Neutral It's pretty close to failing WP:DICDEF. What puts me on the fence is that DICDEF is actually startlingly broad if fully applied.  IMO, this article needs to be rewritten to emphasize the use of the word to describe literary themes--that works for me as an encyclopedic use.  As it stands right now (short def, etymology section), it is basically a good candidate to go to Wiktionary. Protonk (talk) 06:48, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Expandable and sourceable. Protonk is correct that there is no intrinsic separation between a dictionary and an encyclopedia. A good deal of NOTY is excessively rigid if interpreted literally. Perhaps its time to downgrade most of it to a guideline, to make explicit the flexibility that in fact we do use in interpreting.  DGG (talk) 01:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I would be happy if we could reconcile the text in WP:NOT with WP:DICDEF. The summary in WP:NOTDICDEF is much harsher than the actual text of WP:DICDEF.  We ran into this in the Nucular AfD and DRV--I can read WP:NOT and conclude that policy says: delete and read WP:DICDEF and conclude that policy is less stringent.  Looking at it closely, I'm not sure exactly what to change, but we need to make it clear that something like this is borderline and not a flagrant violation (which a look at WP:NOT would lead us to believe it is). Protonk (talk) 06:28, 28 October 2008 (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.