Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raptio


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Raptio

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

Article about a word. And not even an English word, but a Latin word. This etymology and usage information belongs in a dictionary. Powers T 23:55, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Is this for real? The article is well written, well sourced and goes into far more detail than would or could find in a dictionary. ninety:one 00:45, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. The dictionary elements can be placed at raptio (missing page), but that doesnt mean it cant be included in an encyclopedia as well. John Vandenberg (chat) 01:38, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * But Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Any minor dictionary-like elements we include must only be in support of a larger article about a concept.  Powers T 01:43, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * speedy keep. Nonsense, this isn't an "article about a word", it is about the important anthropological feature of abduction of women. If you don't like the title, make a move suggestion. Submitter is also unaware of our practice of keeping dedicated etymologies on Wikipedia, not Wiktionary (mainly because the deletionists over at wikt: hate etymology) --dab (𒁳) 05:11, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is a serious and well-written article about a serious historical issue, with a sister article at bride kidnapping for the individual variant, still common today. An appropriate proportion is about the word itself, a little about etymology, but mostly about how usage has changed over the centuries, which is relevant to understanding the concept. Eminently suitable for an encyclopedia.  BrainyBabe (talk) 08:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. As others have mentioned, this is not a dictionary entry. The title might need to be changed, but that's all. Hairhorn (talk) 16:21, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, wouldn't be opposed to moving to another title (or keeping it where it is).--It's me...Sallicio!$\color{Red} \oplus$ 04:04, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as per above comments. --  JackofOz (talk) 01:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Move over Abduction of women then delete. Note that the word raptio seems to be pure Latin and does not appear in the OED.  As this is the English language Wikipedia, not the Latin one, this does not belong here as a headword.  A perusal of sources such as Google Books indicates that the word is little used in this sense, being more often used to mean rapture.  The usage here gives undue weight to a non-English etymology which seems unsupported by the sources provided in the article. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:17, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. If that is what happens, vigilance will have to be exercised to ensure that the historical concept, involving groups of women (raptio) is kept distinct from bride kidnapping, which is also the abduction of women, but one by one. BrainyBabe (talk) 15:07, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Why? Bride kidnapping is much the same topic and it would make some sense to treat them together.  Colonel Warden (talk) 18:49, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I must respectfully disagree. One is about a historical and mythological subject, largely (as we document it in an encyclopedia) treated in art; the other is a current issue of human rights abuse. One deals with large-scale events during ancient wars; one deals with something that occurs daily, somewhere, now. (Rape in war still happens, of course, but does not lead to large-scale marriages any more.) Bride kidnapping is a good article, if not yet a Good Article, and of appropriate length.  The two subjects are affiliated, but in no way synonymous. It would be like merging dowry and bride price, or arranged marriage and forced marriage. ... Or Georgia and South Georgia, or Ireland and Northern Ireland.... BrainyBabe (talk) 19:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. This is not a WP:DICDEF. The nomination is completely wrong, and should be withdrawn. Fences and windows (talk) 22:43, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The article is fine, having references, and the topic notable.  D r e a m Focus  07:31, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per BrainyBabe's and many others' comments above. --NorwegianBluetalk 12:21, 30 May 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.