Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cyphonism

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) —Theopolisme (talk) 00:04, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cyphonism

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. ❤ Yutsi ^Talk/ Contributions ( 偉特 ) 02:02, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic has entries in The Encyclopaedia Britannica, Or Dictionary of Arts, Sciences, and General Literature, Volume 7, Issue 2 (1842), page 575, the Columbian cyclopedia, Volume 8 (1897) (don't have a page number here) and the Encyclopædia metropolitana; or, Universal dictionary of knowledge (1845) page 503. The presence of the topic as entries in three encyclopedias indicates notability to me. --Mark viking (talk) 03:50, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Definitely a notable topic. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:01, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Listen, the fact that Wikipedia is not a dictionary doesn't mean we have to delete dictionary-type articles. Per WP:BEFORE, we're supposed to exhaust all the non-deletion alternatives before bringing something to AfD, and if there is a non-deletion alternative, then we're supposed to use that instead. But, where something's a dictionary entry, there's always an alternative. We can put in a soft redirect to Wikipedia's sister-project Wiktionary. Wiktionary is the dictionary that Wikipedia isn't, if you see what I mean.
It follows that it's almost never appropriate to AfD dictionary-style entries. The way to deal with unencyclopaedic dictionary content is to replace all the text on the page with {{Wi}}, unless there's no Wiktionary entry (rare) in which case use {{dictdef}}.
My position is that Cyphonism should not be a redlink for that reason.—S Marshall T/C 08:21, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But in reality, AfD's are often used to generate consensus on what to do with an article, with the answer sometimes being neither keep nor delete. There's not really any other forum to bring this up, and I think just replacing the entire article with {{wi}} without consensus would likely be taken badly, especially by the creator and principal maintainers. ❤ Yutsi ^Talk/ Contributions ( 偉特 ) 17:29, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep From the article, it looks expandable. There are presumably sources out there that thee older encyclopedias are depending on that do discuss it. (It might conceivably be a case of copying errors from each other, but showing that would need some investigation. The presumption is that we cover whatever standard general encyclopedias cover -- old or new. DGG ( talk ) 21:53, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.