Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Olifant


 * 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   merge to Elephant. Spartaz Humbug! 11:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Olifant

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Although a good article on a single word, the Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The primary difference between articles in an encyclopedia and in a dictionary is that the latter is about the word, and how it is used, whereas an encyclopedia article is about the thing that the word refers to.

This article is about a word and how it is used and derived and says nothing about the encyclopedic topic, which is the animal. This term is completely synonymous with the term 'elephant', but in the wikipedia synonymous terms are placed in the same article.

Further, it is characteristic of encyclopedia articles that they can be easily translated, as the article topic is not language-specific- whereas the topic here is simply a word in a particular language.

There already is a link to the Elephant article in elephant which links to many different words for elephant, so it does not seem necessary to make this a soft redirect. Given this, I believe that the article should be merged with elephant and a permanent redirect installed.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 02:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions.  —- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 03:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge any unique information to elephant, then delete the article and turn it into a redirect. As per nom, Wikipedia is not a dictionary and the term doesn't have notability independent of "elephant". - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:16, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Can't merge and delete, that would violate GFDL because it'd be transferring authorship. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 03:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge and redirect any relevant info. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 03:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * transwiki to olifant as this is an extended dictionary entry one might find in the OED, so can be put into a "Middle English" section on wiktionary complete with an extensive etymology section. 76.66.194.183 (talk) 04:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Worth a mention in "elephant" (if it's okay with Stephen Colbert). I can't see separate articles about archaic spellings of a word.  Oddly, even "Oliphant", which could probably be a dab page, redirects here. Mandsford (talk) 13:29, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Merge into elephant and redirect this one. De728631 (talk) 18:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC) Keep The article contains more than a definition; this particular spelling has been used in several notable works of literature. See WP:NOT: "Although articles should begin with a good definition and description of one topic, they should provide other types of information about that topic as well. Articles that contain nothing more than a definition should be expanded with additional encyclopedic content, if possible", and other content is present in this article. PaulGS (talk) 03:18, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge content to elephant. This shows how elephant is transliterated into other languages. I suggest creating a section in elephant which will show oliphant.-- JL 09  q? c|undefined 03:00, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, but while it's been used in severable notable works and the article indicates how it is used, the wikipedia is not a usage guide, so it's inappropriate.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 03:22, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Listing uses of a word is not a usage guide, which would tell how to use something, not examples of usage.


 * Comment I believe I created this page for information about the etymology of the word that seemed extraneous in Mumakil (Oliphaunt). As you can see this leads to Olifant (disambiguation). Uthanc (talk) 14:07, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Olifant could either be kept or merged, but Olifant (disambiguation) seems to be in the wrong place. Most of its content is about people called Oliphant, and I should rather have it at Oliphant (disambiguation) or at Oliphant. Does Oliphant need to redirect to elephant? Moonraker2 (talk) 03:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect. The information itself seems valuable but I don't believe that it is notable enough to merit its own article.  Wikipedia is not a dictionary.  Cocytus   [»talk«]  03:52, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect per all of the above reasons for merging/redirecting. But we need to work out where namespaces titled Oliphant, Oliphaunt and Olifant should go or what they should be. Uthanc (talk) 05:35, 30 October 2009 (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.