Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Perfect rhyme


 * 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. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  14:32, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Perfect rhyme

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

This article is the perfect example of a violation of WP:DICTDEF. The article does not go beyond defining what a "perfect rhyme" is, and the only references for the article are dictionary entries. I see no possibility for expanding the article past the dictionary definition that it is. It has already been transwikied to Wiktionary, but a proposed deletion attempt was previously overturned. --  At am a chat 19:53, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions.   --  At am a chat 19:53, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - as the nominator said, it's just a dictionary definition without any potential for being expanded beyond that. Reyk  YO!  19:59, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep only because I think it can be expanded to show examples of usage, including poets who use it exclusively, or to contrast against other types of poetry and methods. You can get into usage in nursery rhymes, etc. It isn't just a single line def even now, and gives examples.  When was it first used?  How often is it used now? etc.  P HARMBOY  (moo) (plop) 20:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - If that is the case then I'd be all for keeping the article. However, "showing examples of usage" isn't any more than a dictionary does. Showing poets who use it exclusively seems trivial, unless there's some notable reason why they do so (if it was a controversial thing to do, or spawned a genre of poetry, although an article on that genre might be more appropriate). As far as "other types of poetry and methods", my understanding is that this isn't a "type of poetry" at all, but rather just a type of rhyme. If we wanted to have an article comparing kinds of rhymes, there already is one. And yes, it isn't just a single line definition now, but neither are dictionary definitions. It's not that I'm opposed to the article if it can be expanded, I just don't think this subject can. --  At am a chat 22:23, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I would say move to Wiktionary, but it already has an article there... notably, the page's only sources are dictionaries themselves! Until there's significantly more to add on the subject (I can't claim that I'm an expert on the matter) I say delete, since I can't really find anything else of note to add. I don't really think that more examples is sufficient. However, if something else to add to the page came up, I'd be more than willing to switch. Firebat08 (talk) 21:24, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The article has two sources that are not dictionaries. Uncle G (talk) 21:56, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I'm sensing that what Pharmboy meant in describing being able to "show examples of usage" is to show why perfect rhyme is used by writers; the article already shows examples of how perfect rhyme works. As to why it is used, it's a rather frequent requirement for popular music, where an unlikely rhyme can be the lyrical equivalent of a sour note.  There are plenty of sources that can be used to expand beyond a dictionary definition, including such usages as in songwriting .  The concept requires some more explanation, and I think that can be easily done from verifiable sources. Mandsford (talk) 00:44, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for wording it better. I am better at visualisation than expression, obviously.  There are other applications that can be explained here, and in the end I can see a very nice article. Early rap/hip hop used perfect rhyme more than modern, advertising jingles use it because it is easy to remember, etc.  There are a lot of different directions you can go with this and be informative.  But that is a matter of discussion within the article talk.  P HARMBOY  (moo) (plop) 00:54, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - Like I said before, if there's SOMETHING of real substance that can expand this beyond a dictionary definition I'd be all for it. Is there a chance any of you can expand the article a bit to show any of this stuff, not that I'm doubting you but it's one thing to say an article that's been a dicdef for a year and a half can be expanded, and another to do it. I'd even be willing to help with the expansion if I knew what material there was to add. --  At am a chat 19:32, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You can start by finding literary critics discussing why modern poets and popular song writers don't use perfect rhymes. Begin by reading chapter 4 of ISBN 9780793511815, and then go to look for some more sources yourself. Uncle G (talk) 21:56, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep more a stub than a dicdef; patently absurd to suggest there's no possibility for expansion. Wily D  13:51, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - Have you looked at the Wiktionary article for "perfect rhyme"? It's almost indistinguishable from this article, or at least the way the article looked at the posting of this AfD. As it stands now, it is a dictionary definition, and it's absurd to suggest otherwise. --  At am a chat 19:32, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Yes, this is long, but I have been doing some homework on the applicable policies, and would rather just spell it out one time. I think you may be reading the guidelines too narrowly, and misinterpreting the intent.  Lets look at the actual policies at hand.  At least two of us are confident that it can be expanded (even if we aren't the experts to do so).  My reading of wp:AFD (ie: If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD.) says this isn't a good candidate for AFD, as we have explained how to fix it. I don't question the faith of the nom in the least, it is just that others here may have more imagination when it comes to the potential for the article here.  That it hasn't been expanded really isn't a strong argument to delete, via WP:NOEFFORT.  If the consensus thinks there is no hope to ever expand, that still doesn't mean it fails WP:DICDEF automatically.  DICDEF says a couple of important things that apply, including All stubs should have the potential to develop into full articles. A stub that has no possibility whatsoever for expansion beyond stub status is presenting the verifiable information in the wrong way. Wikipedia should not have single-fact articles. which I take to mean that if the article COULDN'T be expanded, then it should be merged into something else, and yes, single fact articles shouldn't be kept if they can't be expanded.  I am arguing it can.  Even so, DICDEF almost contradicts itself later when it says This does not mean that stubs that have no possibility for expansion should be copied to Wiktionary. They are still encyclopedia articles, not dictionary articles. so even if it WAS a single use, that doesn't automatically qualify it as a WP:DICDEF to be deleted or transwiki'ed (already there), and there may be circumstances where a short article with a single use is valid.  It seems to boil down to two basic issue, and a YES to either one says we have to keep:
 * Is there any possibility of expanding? (note, the standard is possibility, not probability)
 * Is Wikipedia a better encyclopedia with the information, or without? (DICDEF exception and IAR)
 * With this in mind, I can't help but to think a keep is the only logical conclusion for both instances. It can be expanded and plenty of examples have been given.  Even if it couldn't, it improves Wikipedia (WP:DICDEF and IAR exceptions).  Even if there weren't examples, DICDEF doesn't say it *must* be deleted anyway, and allows for single use articles.  No other issues were raised in this AFD.  It is notable, it can be sourced, it is just a stub at this time, we have no deadline to fix it.   D ENNIS B ROWN  (T) (C) 20:50, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - You stated, "My reading of wp:AFD (ie: If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD.) says this isn't a good candidate for AFD, as we have explained how to fix it." If you read AfD again, notice that it is for discussion of whether an article should be deleted or not. Among the valid deletion criteria are articles not suitable for an encyclopedia, and it links the WP:NOT policy. On WP:NOT, you will see among the various examples WP:NOTDICDEF (it's almost the first example). This article appears to me (and others as you can see) to be a violation of the WP:NOT policy, and so it's very appropriate to bring to AfD to discuss whether it should be deleted or not. --  At am a chat 01:03, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Avoiding a circular argument I never doubted your sincerity or the good faith in nominating the article. My point is that now it has been made clear that there are several valid justifications to expand the article that you might not have thought of when you first brought it to AFD.  I completely understand how this might not be obvious at first glance.  It isn't about being wrong or right, it is about understanding that sometimes, a whole group of people come up good ideas and reasons that we might not have though of by ourselves.  The purpose of the guidelines isn't to make it easy to delete articles, it is to offer guidance on what and how to keep them.  D ENNIS B ROWN  (T) (C) 01:28, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - That's good, and I'm convinced based on the arguments given that the article is justified in being kept. That's what the purpose of an AfD is, to come to a consensus and I believe now that the article can be expanded. I'm a bit surprised and dismayed about editors (not yourself) who have used this AfD as an opportunity to attack the DICDEF guideline and question my nomination of this article. --  At am a chat 01:57, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Article cannot ever expand beyond its currect dictdef state. This article is unencyclopedic and already exists on wiktionary. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 21:20, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep An immense amount of literature is available dealing with this and with other details of literary writing. There is more to say than the mere definition: there is the possibilities of not just examples of the use in different languages and different periods and of discussion of these examples; there is the discussion of it in the thousands of handbooks and didactic and critical works; there is the varying use of it in different periods and literatures and individual authors.  I find it amazing that people should say of any subject  at all that it cannot be expanded DGG (talk) 22:48, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - Then why do we even have a WP:DICDEF guideline, or at least why does the guideline discuss unexpandable subjects? Saying that it's "amazing" that someone thinks a subject can't be expanded is a lack of imagination. I'll give you an example, "pinky fingernail". It's definitely a notable subject, almost everyone has one. Yet does it deserve its own article, is there enough to say about a "pinky fingernail" that's encyclopedic? Of course not. In any case, I don't think an AfD page is a place to debate the merits of a guideline, we're here to discuss the merits of this article. --  At am a chat 00:50, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a dictionary is a policy, not a guideline. And there are plenty of words and phrases in dictionaries that do not denote concrete subjects for encyclopaedia articles.  This is, after all, why we have Naming conventions (adjectives) and Naming conventions (verbs).  The policy discusses the expansion of stubs to make it clear that (a) we only delete stubs if there is no possibility for them ever to be expanded &mdash; and in many cases we rename and refactor (per the aforementioned naming conventions, and per our our Redirect and Notability guidelines) or merge (again, per the conventions and guidelines) them instead &mdash; and (b) a short encyclopaedia article is not the same as a dictionary article.  "short" is not synonymous with "dictionary". Uncle G (talk) 12:06, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Please review the subject before commenting on it. It's patently absurd to suggest that this couldn't be expanded to a substantial article (or realistically, even a substantial article with many substantial daughter articles).  Wily D  13:45, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - It appears to be a traditional literary topic for which lots of sources could be found in academic literature. EdJohnston (talk) 22:57, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and probably merge to Rhyme where most of the information already seems to be covered. If there is significant scope to expand the article (which from this discussion I think is debatable) then a separate article can be split off. Whilst I think the current article is not just a dictionary definition until there is additional information to present there is no need to send readers off to a separate article. Guest9999 (talk) 03:40, 10 November 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.