Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Velleity


 * 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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Velleity

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Textbook dictionary definition, plus examples of usage (which also belong in a dictionary). There's no encyclopedic content here. Powers T 13:33, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Transwiki to Wiktionary per WP:NOTDICTIONARY. Armbrust  Talk  Contribs  16:04, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Soft redirect to velleity (already has an entry) per WP:NOTDICTIONARY. -- Explodicle (T/C) 19:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Bearian was one step ahead of me and has clarified the context significantly. I suggest the other !keep folks take a look at it when they get the chance. -- Explodicle (T/C) 20:08, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - this is another perfectly good stub on a concept. There has been a rash of nominations for deletion of conceptiual articles on WP, and I have no idea why.  Dictionary definitions belong elsewhere, per WP:DICDEF.  However, articles about a concept belong here.  I created this article, a while ago, which had been previously deleted, and I fixed it up.  I guess this is going to need a second rescue.  It is well-cited and discusses not only its definition, and how the word is used, but the concept (phenomenology) behind it.  I am not sure what else the deletionists want, except to have an encyclopedia of biographies of celebrities. Bearian (talk) 19:40, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Explodicle; I am still working on clarifying it and getting more citations. Bearian (talk) 20:45, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * For the record, this was the version I nominated; nothing about phenomenology there. I'm also not sure which of our articles on phenomenology is being referenced, since that page is a disambiguation page.  From what I can see of the new section, the ground would be more appropriately covered at volition (psychology), since "velleity" describes merely a degree of volition.  Powers T 21:29, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Everything I've read about velleity is that it is so small in degree from volition as to be a subtly distinct concept. Small children "get it" - "exactly the same, only different." :-) Bearian (talk) 22:38, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep as article is well sourced and and met the criteria of WP:N and WP:V. Armbrust  Talk  Contribs  22:04, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * None of which I've questioned. The problem is content -- we have definitions, and usage examples, and not much else.  Powers T 14:22, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * This is not a widespread known topic, but it is notable, which is shown by the references therein and many more that could be added that may be found online with the smallest effort. In fact, past outcomes have shown that concepts in philosophy and psychology may be considered de facto notable.  Powers, I am not sure that your definition of "encyclopedic content" is the consensus definition of that term.  Can you please explain in more detail about what you want, rather than that you don't seem to like the concept, or making just an bald assertion?   Could you also explain a bit more about why your feel the concept is not notable?  It is not a controversial concept and I have no axe to grind, so I am baffled about why anyone would want this to be deleted. Bearian (talk) 17:05, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I never said that I "feel the concept is not notable". I never even implied that.  In fact, I came right out and stated that notability was not being questioned.  I'm not sure how it's possible for you to have missed that.  Powers T 17:39, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The reasons for nominating this are poor. The article has clear encyclopedic content.  If you think something more than the "Textbook dictionary definition, plus examples of usage" should be added, then discuss it on the talk page.  AFD is a last resort, not a first.   D r e a m Focus  20:43, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I most certainly do not want to see more added to what was there when I nominated it, because what was there when I nominated it was wholly unencyclopedic and needs to be excised, which is why I brought it to AfD. There were no other "resorts" for me to take.  Powers T 23:03, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If the article had already been improved to the state it's in now, would you still have nominated it for deletion? -- Explodicle (T/C) 05:56, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Probably. It's pretty much still just a list of various usages and advocates for the use of the word, rather than a discussion of the concept of velleity itself.  There's a bit of the latter, but it's sparse and overwhelmed by the former.  Powers T 11:48, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You should keep the article AND keep it marked for deletion. It's a perfect illustration of the concept.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.210.68.139 (talk) 17:29, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Aha I get it. LOL. Bearian (talk) 20:34, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Appears to be well-sourced and notable.   talk 23:33, 9 June 2010 (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.