Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Five Wits


 * 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) 00:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

The Five Wits (article now at Five wits)

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

Prod was contested at the last minute by someone who wanted this article transwikied to Wiktionary. However, the transwiki has been declined, and the article suffers from a lack of context. Delete.  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 02:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - as has been pointed out by two other editors on the article's talk page, the concept is a notable one that appears in Shakespeare and other literary sources. I quick Google search reveals that there is plenty of material to expand the article with.  The fact that the current version is in poor shape is not a valid reason for deletion. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:22, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, as an FYI the person who flagged it for copy to wiktionary & the person who de-prodded weren't the same person. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:26, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions.  -- ThaddeusB (talk) 02:27, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  -- ThaddeusB (talk) 02:27, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete The refs do not indicate this is a notable topic. Conceivably it could be a definition on Wiktionary, but it is not suitable for an encyclopedic article. Johnuniq (talk) 10:14, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Uncle G has just expanded the article considerably, which should make it a lot more clear why the topic is notable. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:35, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, but clean-up and add sources. In addition to literary-studies scholarship, such as that added by ThaddeusB and Uncle G, the notion seems to be discussed in some older philology literature. It should be possible to rescue the article. Cnilep (talk) 20:59, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article is pretty bad, but the concept is notable. The focus on "the time of William Shakespeare" is unfortunate, since the notion of the ten wits goes back at least to Aristotle and was fundamental in medieval psychology (see, for instance, C. S. Lewis, The Discarded Image, pp. 161–65). I don't think the current title is the best that could be devised, but a good article on the topic of the inward and outward senses is certainly writable; I'm rather surprised that we don't have one already (at least, I haven't found one by searching for likely terms). Deor (talk) 22:17, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, both C.S. Lewis and Aristotle were already mentioned in the article at the time that you wrote that, and I was busy making this edit. Way ahead of you, kiddo. &#9786;  Yes, our only discussion of this up until now appears to be one sentence in sense. Uncle G (talk) 22:38, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per Uncle G's improvements. I requested the transwiki to Wiktionary, but I personally don't see why there cannot be an entry over there. I was more reluctant to endorse or contest the prod as I thought this information could easily be at the least a Wiktionary entry. MuZemike 23:56, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * There certainly can be an entry if it is in dictionary form, which (IMO) the article wasn't (which is why I removed the tag). Or more precisely, it could have probably been transferred and used but it would have required significant re-working there (their standards are different than ours).  Additionally, I was confident a real article could be written here so I didn't want it transferred and deleted. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:26, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep Removal of a prod is an indication that an article should be kept, not that it should be deleted. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:18, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Plenty of sources confirming the information. Any for what significant periods of human history was this information believed, and by what notable civilizations?  This is clearly a notable subject.   D r e a m Focus  18:17, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - I contested the prod because it was ridiculous to suggest that a centuries-old term was a "neologism". Maybe I'm shaky on what qualifies as a neologism, but a concept that was popular as far back as Aristotle doesn't seem to me to be "recently coined". There's a lot of potential in this article and no lack of scholarly resources for it, and it would be very unfortunate if it was deleted. --  At am a chat 15:32, 8 June 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.