Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Viewing instrument


 * 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. Stifle (talk) 10:49, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Viewing instrument

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

This is an article on the suffix "-scope", and was titled -scope until recently. The article claims to be about "viewing instruments" (a pretty loosely defined term), but really the only thing the list entries have in common is the suffix -scope (gyroscope and horoscope are certainly not "viewing instruments", for instance). This material is already covered in Wiktionary. There is precedent for deleting suffix articles that basically consist of dictionary definitions - see, for example, here and here. Jafeluv (talk) 12:01, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:NOTDICTIONARY. McMarcoP (talk) 12:27, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Weak keep I moved the article from -scope to viewing instrument because this was probably the best chance the article had for survival, and because an article on that topic can probably be written that outlines the general principles that viewing instruments can employ to make an abstract or real phenomenon more visible. I agree that the article is essentially a dictionary definition at this time, but I believe the article can be made encyclopedic, and hence should be kept.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 12:56, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Changed to delete. This article is never going anywhere that the -scope article isn't already; in fact it's not as good, the list of 'scope's is a fraction of the length and the 'glossary' lacks definitions which is actually the whole point of glossaries. There's no references to viewing instruments, and renaming it to -scope would violate WP:MOS as well as WP:NOTADICT.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 11:58, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That doesn't make it beyond saving, it just needs some TLC. WP:RUBBISH. --Cyber cobra (talk) 12:33, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This article is not salvageable without redefining its topic to make it not a dictionary entry and completely rewriting every part of it. There is no part that is worth keeping, and hence it fails both WP:RUBBISH as well as WP:NOTADICT and WP:MOS.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 13:01, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: A horoscope is a means to measure or see the future. Gyroscope measures and makes available rotational changes. How is this list any less encyclopedic than any of the comparable lists that get by? It is more a list than article but maybe you could write article text on more details of etymologies or something. I've never understood lists in the post-treekilling era but I'm not sure where you could easily generate this list- does google do well with something similar to "*scope"? Is this less encyclopedic than lists of various award winners? Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 13:13, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Award winners are at least proper nouns, and proper nouns are not usually found in dictionaries, so the argument that articles of award winners are misplaced dictionary entries wouldn't fly. See also List of scandals with "-gate" suffix which are also proper nouns. Those kinds of lists are not purely lexical however, they are built around some kind of concept, unlike this article we are discussing, which is everything ending in 's' 'c' 'o' 'p' 'e'.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 04:14, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Article is no longer primarily linguistic, it just needs work and expansion. --Cyber cobra (talk) 18:38, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a "List of ..." (and thus encyclopedically valid) rather than a mere dictionary definition. If any of these terms have articles that warrant deletion as mere dictionary articles, that should be raised per-article, where needed. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:06, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a list of words having a common suffix. That is, a list of related words, as opposed to related entities. That's a dictionary article, not an encyclopaedia article. As I noted above, the list is already covered in the Wiktionary article. Jafeluv (talk) 09:56, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Although it's currently equivalent to a list of *-scope words, that's not its definition. That is now as a list of viewing instruments with names derived from this suffix. As its defining factor has shifted from spelling to function, that's encyclopedic rather than lexicographical. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:14, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Speaking as the person that did this, I simply made it up from scratch, and you'll note it is unreferenced; and it's completely unclear that this an important topic of knowledge, and hence IMO it is doubtless not WP:notable right now.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 13:28, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and move back to -scope. This should never have been moved in the first place. Irbisgreif (talk) 02:27, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you think this is a point of principle, but even if you succeed in this weird idea of putting it back, the article will just be a carbon copy of the dictionary one. The centre of the article is a lexical item 'logy' and things related to that. It doesn't matter whether it is in the dictionary or the encyclopedia, any article starting at the same place, on the same topic that contains stuff related to the same thing will end up essentially the same, with at best only trivial differences in formatting. At best you end up with a duplicated article, and if they're not, you can trivially make them so.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 12:27, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This was the deletion discussion for -scope/Viewing Instrument, not -logy. I don't consider it a point of principle, it just rubs the linguist in me the wrong way. Irbisgreif (talk) 18:12, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The whole point of any encyclopedia is that you centre each article on a general idea of something, not a word. That's because ideas are much more general, and they give you general knowledge about something. Words only tell you about how English speakers refer to things. That's very valuable too, but it's what dictionaries are for. Encyclopedia articles on a general idea like 'viewing instrument' are translateable, an article on 'scope' isn't.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 12:27, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your insight to a new definition of encyclopædia as "something with articles centred on different general ideas" and not "a compendium of knowledge", , , , . I realize you feel strongly about this, but could you please both assume good faith and a desire to build an encyclopædia on the part of those who do not agree with you? Irbisgreif (talk) 18:12, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * (Comment) this is an ad hominen attack on me, and is unrelated to the article or the review. FWIW this user appears to be WP:WIKIHOUNDING me.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 13:28, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Since Wolfkeeper brought this up here, in what I can only view as an attempt to discredit me, (which is unfortunate, as I wish to work with this user, not against them) I think I should link to the discussion on that over here. I do not understand this editor's anger towards me, I have only desired to discuss things with this user. Irbisgreif (talk) 13:49, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep anre move make to the originalo title. The current fad for trying to delete word suffixes when they represent by themselves concepts capable of encyclopedic discussion seems really absurd in this case, and an article under the original title should be sustainable. Wolfkeeper makes a helpful distinction that the articles in an encyclopedia are centered around things and groups of things, and concepts, not words-- the words being secondary.  If there is a common semantic concept, and it can be discussed, that's the basis of an article.  DGG ( talk ) 05:28, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Gack. While it is true in a sense that a sequence of letters like 'scope' is a concept in its own right, trouble is, that's a just a word part, and lexical concepts like explicit words are disclaimed by the WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The list of scopes is pointless for this article, there's a dictionary entry that is not going to be deleted and is better anyway.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 11:58, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * keep and move back. Changing an article name to something that it isn't and then nominating because the article isn't about what the title is isn't fair on article concerned and taints the deletion discussion to the point where it is worthless. This needs moving back to the original location and properly nominated under what it is not what its incorrectly called. If this were deleted after this discussion I have no doubt DRV would overturn it - and I'm normally the voice for deletion at DRV.... Spartaz Humbug! 19:50, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Firstly, I didn't have anything to do with the name change, which was made by Wolfkeeper, I believe. Secondly, if my only objection to this page was that its title doesn't match the content, I can assure you that I would have taken it to WP:RM instead. My concern is that Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and that this list of words offers nothing more than a dictionary definition, and as such is redundant to the Wiktionary entry for the same subject (please note that if you open the "Terms derived from -scope" box in Wiktionary, you get the same list as we currently have in the article). The same problems affect other suffix articles, like -ism and -itis, both of which were deleted due to these issues. Jafeluv (talk) 20:37, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not accusing you of any misbehaviour and I know you didn't do the move but if you look at it its unfortunate it gets moved and then nominated. I'm aware of some of the suffix deletion debates, I have closed a few myself but I actually feel there is a need to clarify the boundary between wikipedia and wiktionary before we seriously look at dicdef articles that have more then a little content. This is also a list and I'm kinda conflicted but this should be debated as a -scope article not a Viewing instrument one if were are to have a sensible discussion of its merits. Spartaz Humbug! 20:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This is supposed to be a policy discussion. To summarise your position Spartaz: WP:ILIKEIT. Great. I mean, you mention no other policies at all. This presumably explains some of the other deletion reviews you closed as Keep.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 21:08, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Wolfkeeper, that was a little uncalled for, especially since it was you who complained about ad hominems a few lines up. I don't know what kind of history you two have, but please try to concentrate on the issue and not the editor. If you have complaints about Spartaz's earlier closures, this is not the venue for them. Jafeluv (talk) 22:27, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That was entirely uncalled for but not unexpected given his recent behaviour badgering editors at AFD and just being trully objectional. I don't know if he is just obnoxious or simply trying to goad me into saying or doing something that would force me to recuse from closing AFD's that he has been involved in but I'm afraid that that's not going to happen. Just some friendly advice Wolfkeeper, carry on the ad homs and assumptions of bad faith and it won't be long before someone decides that the disruption your behaviour causes isn't acceptable. Speaking as a very experienced user and not as an admin I see several likely outcomes for you if you don't moderate yourself better: a user RFC, a nice long fat block or a ban from participating in bits of wikipedia that you can't be trusted to play nicely in. Your choice or you could just stop abusing editors who disagree with you. state your opinion nicely in discussions and show some respect to your fellow editors. You choose. Spartaz Humbug! 23:01, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Since none of this has anything to do with the encyclopaedic value of the Viewing instrument article, I suggest you take this debate to the user talk namespace. It's distracting from the matter at hand. Thanks. Jafeluv (talk) 23:29, 18 August 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.