Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Querent

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 delete. Consensus is that DICDEF applies, though this does not prevent the creation of a disambiguation page as has been proposed. Sandstein 12:11, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Querent

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Per my contested PROD, This is a dictionary definition, not an article. The second paragraph is just a straightforward usage of the term in the contextx of the book, not an actual topic. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:16, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:DICDEF -Roxy the bad tempered dog 07:20, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:NOTDICT Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 17:57, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Justi yaya 07:16, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate. A "querent" in this case simply means 'someone who seeks answers through a divination process' and so would make for a suitable redirect to Divination (where the term is introduced; I'm simply assuming the topic of querent is not notable per se). However, there's a second use of the term as well: as a less common synonym for Plaintiff. It appears reasonable to assume there's no primary topic here, so I propose 1) turning the article into a redirect to Divination and then moving it to something like Querent (divination) (in order to preserve the article history under a redirect that's related to the topic); then 2) turning Querent into a dab page; its content could be something like:
Querent may refer to:
- The person who consults a divination process
- Plaintiff, the person initiating a lawsuit
Both meanings are reliably attested (e.g. OED), our readers are looking for them: the article receives about a thousands views each month, a third of which arrive from web searches [1] (so it's not just traffic from the incoming links), and we've got relevant articles for both meanings, so redirecting to Wiktionary would be out of the question. – Uanfala (talk) 12:33, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No objection to this proposal. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 12:48, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Dhoru 21 (talk・contribs) 08:32, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - We delete a dictionary definition only if it doesn't appear to be possible to improve it to present an encyclopedic treatment. If we remove the first paragraph here it becomes a legitimate referenced stub. I see plenty of coverage in a book search for the term's use in the field of divination. ~~Pppery's~~Uanfala's proposal also looks reasonable but that's an improvement that can be taken on outside AfD if the article is kept. ~Kvng (talk) 20:54, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
FYI it's not my proposal, it's Uanfala's * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:54, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Modussiccandi (talk) 20:42, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 10:56, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CommentI see nothing to change my mind. -Roxy the English speaking dog 13:00, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:DICDEF def applies. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:36, 27 July 2022 (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.