Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Turncoat


 * 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. – bradv 🍁  23:18, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Turncoat

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This looks like someone took a WP:DICTDEF and beefed it up with WP:OR. I don't think this can be salvaged, at best, I'd recommend redirecting this to Treason (probably more relevant than Betrayal and Defection). There is little if anything for merging, given that what little is referenced is either trivial or the references don't seem very reliable (or both). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:38, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  04:38, 21 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep The nomination does not propose deletion. And it makes it clear that that there are plenty of other pages about similar topics including treason, defection, betrayal, party switching, crossing the floor and so on.  Those are all distinct and separate pages and the nomination fails to make a good case why this particular one should be singled out for attention.  The topic has some significance in its historical and literal meaning and here's an entire book about the topic to prove it.  The usual policies apply: WP:ATD, WP:NEXIST, WP:NOTPAPER, WP:PRESERVE, &c. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:11, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument for proposing keeping this. Cited policies, particularly OR, is enough to warrant deletion. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:30, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
 * A vague wave to a policy is not an adequate reason to delete. You have to explain why the supposed issue cannot be resolved by ordinary editing per policy WP:ATD, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page."  See also WP:NOTCLEANUP.  My !vote stands. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:45, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
 * DICTDEF and OR are quite relevant here. And WP:GNG is not met, either. And I will add WP:CONTENTFORK to the articles mentioned in lead. A vague wave to ATD and such is not helpful. But I am sure nothing will make you change your "vote", no worries. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 02:28, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * No, DICTDEF and OR are not met because this is not a dictionary edit, because the concept is not original. And WP:GNG is easily met, as I have evidenced.  Using substantial sources such as the book, I cited, it would be easy to expand and improve the current article.  This is the point of the polict WP:ATD which therefore applies.  As my position is based upon evidence and policy, my !vote stands. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:09, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep - it is clear there is enough content to substantiate more than just a dictionary definition. I'm not sure why Traitor redirects to Treason and not to this article (or vice versa). Traitor and Turncoat are far more synonymous than Traitor and Treason. Regardless, this term used to describe traitors has been in use since 1557 so I don't thinking WP:LASTING is in doubt. Wikipedia isn't a dictionary, but there are plenty of reasons to include important words and phrases beyond simple etymology.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 02:44, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Ironically, the term in its original form was used to describe the act of pretending to be an enemy so as to avoid the attention of said enemy; literally turning your coat inside out. It is now synonymous with treachery and defection, but that wasn't always so, certainly not originally so. That sort of detail - to my mind - moves this beyond the sort of thing a dictionary would cover, into encyclopedic territory.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 02:48, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The only "tiny" problem is that we need sources for this. Otherwise we have a not so tiny problem with OR. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 06:00, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure, yeah, and plenty of the current article needs to go (as unsourced OR) but there are plenty of sources for verifying the basics, like the one above and this one.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 06:16, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Nobody is disputing that the word is used, but we need WP:SIGCOV (which is not shown in either sorurce). And in general, 19th century sources are not very useful. Otherwise, all we have is OR based on expanding a DICTDEF. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 07:40, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Not very useful? They both seem fine to me. They each independently confirm the genesis of the term and there are plenty of sources to define the way in which the term is used now. Factually covering its history and then its current use isn't original research; we're allowing the reader to draw their own conclusion. But a solid paragraph from each about the history of the subject is pretty significant coverage for a word, I'd say.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 11:16, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I beg to differ. One sentence about the origins of the word is not WP:SIGCOV enough to warrant it having a stand-alone article. Am I missing anything else in the sources? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 13:07, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * If it were one sentence in one publication I don't think we'd be having this discussion. But its a detailed paragraph (7 sentences by my count) in one source, and a shorter (2 sentences) explanation in another. And, as above, these are coverage of the word in one particular historical context; one which is different to those included in the article (for which there are additional sources). In fact, despite agreement from these reliable sources about the origin of the term, there is no reference to that origin in the article itself. So the article absolutely needs work, but that's a fix-the-problem sort of problem.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1
 * Fair enough, not one sentence (but WP:SIGCOV gives the example of a proper treatment as a book... granted, I think it's too much to ask for). Anyway. Here we have the two sentences, about an otherwise unnamed Duke of Saxony who is claimed to be the origins of the story of the word origins. The paragraph in the 19th century work instead attributes this story to a Duke of Savoy, and doesn't give any more usable details. It is an interesting story, but I am afraid that to argue that the word "turncoat" is notable because we have a short paragraph (at best, easily summarizable in a single sentence...) story about its origins, is IMHO, a major stretch. I'd be fine with this story being preserved, for example in the article on traitor or such, although honestly I have to ask - isn't this WP:TRIVIA? If we could identify that Duke by name, then this story might be best incorporated into their biography "his life also gave raise the English word "turncoat"). But since we have two stories that mix titles and neither gives names, it's probably just a "tall tale"... Ps. I noted that the 19th century source also gives us the Duke's first name, Emmanuel. That might refer to Charles Emmanuel II, Duke of Savoy. Although it is unfortunate the first (more modern) source seems to have the error(?) with Saxony instead of Savoy. Anyway, I'd suggest we add this story to the article about Emmanuel (although it would be good to verify it with more sources...). But I still don't see the need for this entry to remain as a stand-alone article.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  03:18, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * That's a solid suggestion, but as I said in my original comment, we don't have an article at Traitor. Strangely, it redirects to Treason. If we had a stand-alone article at Traitor I think it would have the possibility of being far more substantive than anything we could manage at Turncoat and could easily include turncoat-related material (yes, "trivia" perhaps). But these etymological articles are being nominated for deletion at a rate of knots, so I don't think anyone is going to be encouraged to undertake that in the current climate.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 05:10, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete - example of WP:DICTDEF with an overgrown etymology and usage through WP:OR. Do not believe it can be any more than this as most sources dealing with this word are just dictionaries/etymologies. A perfectly good entry already exists for this over on Wiktionary. Vladimir.copic (talk) 04:07, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 17:33, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment (1) Undoubtedly it's possible to find references for a proper, historical and enyclopaedic article on the concept of the turncoat. It might be best to do a combined article on all sorts of traitor, and mention the history of the term 'turncoat' as part of that article. But current lack of references is not grounds for deletion; it's grounds for improvement. (2) We're over-using the dictionary excuse for deleting things. Lots of nouns fall in a cross-over zone where a dictionary might become slightly encyclopaedic as it discusses the origin of a term, and an encyclopaedia can sound slightly like a dictionary as it defines a concept whose historical and social contexts it's about to discuss. This is fine. The two sorts of reference work do overlap, and the encyclopaedia-article will ultimately handle things in a different way, with more depth. But the basic problem (Stalwart111 is right) is that no one in their right mind is going to try to write that sort of article, because the Avenging Angels of Antidictionarianism will pounce on it in its most embryonic state and tear it limb from limb before it's had a chance to breathe. You might as well move your article straight from draft-space to AfD and forget the bit in between. Elemimele (talk) 18:09, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep - I do think the subject meets WP:GNG, by the sources identified in this discussion. WP:NOTDIC doesn't seem to apply here: "In some cases, a word or phrase itself may be an encyclopedic subject. .... such articles must go beyond what would be found in a dictionary entry (definition, pronunciation, etymology, use information, etc.), and include information on the social or historical significance of the term." It seems clear to me that the sourcing exists beyond dictionary information to provide social and historical context, as a good encyclopedia entry should. Additional background from historian Andrew Hopper (see quotes).  Suriname0 (talk) 14:03, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you, but brief examples of use IMHO still merit but a merger to a larger topic (treason/traitor). Encyclopedia does not need dictionary-entries for synonyms of what is, essentially, a single concept. No information needs to be lost, of course, such an article can totally host a short paragraph on the history and use of a more widely used synonym (for some food for thought, I just finished an article on space travel in science fiction, and while the concept of hyperspace is arguably notable enough for stand-alone articles, words like subspace, overspace and nulspace don't need anything but a redirect and a brief mention in that article... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 06:30, 4 September 2021 (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.