Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Requiescat in pace

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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. The article was substantially improved beginning on 22 October 2009 ; earlier "delete" opinions may no longer be current.  Sandstein  20:43, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requiescat in pace

edit
Requiescat in pace (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Move to wiktionary Quest for Truth (talk) 20:31, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to {{Dicdef}} --Quest for Truth (talk) 11:45, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did not intend to indicate that contributors intended abuse, and am sorry if I left open that interpretation. --Fartherred (talk) 04:50, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed there should not be articles for every word and phrase, but there are some words and phrases about which significant encyclopaedic information can be written so as to be inappropriate solely for a dictionary entry (in just the same way that Wikipedia is not a dictionary, Wiktionary is not an encyclopaedia). Examples of words and phrases with encyclopaedia articles are thus, go (verb), anno domini and The King is dead. Long live the King.. I'm not making a WP:WAX argument here, but showing examples of how encyclopaedic articles can be written about words/phrases and the concepts they embody, and I believe that Requiescat in pace/Rest in peace (which redirects to the former) is another example of such an article. Thryduulf (talk) 09:28, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No one uses the Wiktionary, never has and never will. Its crap, and should be gotten rid of. Use Websters instead. Or merge it with the regular Wikipedia, since then it'd show up in searches, and people might actually notice it. No reason why any words should be separated from regular articles. Dream Focus 10:22, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Except, you know, that this is an encyclopedia and our articles should largely be about concepts, not words. Powers T 14:04, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nothing more than a dictionary definition. Powers T 14:04, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Can any of the participants above give some examples of sources that describe how the term itself is notable, rather than just using it? Searching google is quite difficult, as the vast majority of hits are just definitions or trivial usages, and not articles about the term itself.

    @Bearian: Inclusion on a foreign-language Wikipedia is not necessarily evidence of notability. Many other Wikipedias have a significantly lower bar than en-wiki; for example, fr-wiki used to have fr:分, a totally non-notable 'article' on a random word, and I had to fight relatively hard to get it deleted. Likewise, the zh-wiki version of requiescat in pace has already been deleted. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 14:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete dicdef.Bali ultimate (talk) 01:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'd love to say Keep, mainly because this phrase is one of those bits of knowledge that people come to Wikipedia to see. And I have to believe that there is some sort of Reliable Source that can describe the difference between RIP, Rest in Peace, and this. Stats.grok.se indicates that this article gets a few hundred hits per day, for what it's worth - many articles get far less. But, if sources exist, I can't find them, so i'll reserve judgement. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 17:09, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I experienced no difficulty in finding a source which discusses the origin of this phrase and its frequency as an epitaph in various times and places. The nomination fails our deletion policy as there has been no recent discussion at the article's talk page, which is as quiet as the grave, and reasonable alternatives to deletion such as merger to Epitaph or List of Latin phrases: R do not seem to have been considered. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:04, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thryduulf wrote that the articles he refered to were examples of encyclopedic articles about words. I found the "Thus" article to be a soft redirect; the "Go" article an extremely extended dictionary style article about the meaning, history, derivation and use of the word; the only encyclopedic portion of the "Anno domini" article is the portion about the calendar; and the "The King is dead. Long live the King." article the only one that is a reasonably encyclopedic article about something culturally significant. As the "Anno domini" information could be much cut back and merged with the Gregorian calendar article; so the "Requiescat in pace" information could be merged with Headstone, the "Inscriptions" section.
Colonel Warden's complaint about the lack of discussion on the talk page for "Requiescat in pace" does not seem reasonable. If no one is using that talk page they do not miss the notice that the article is being considered for deletion by going to the talk page instead of the article page where the deletion and rescue notices are prominently displayed. What does Colonel Warden want on the talk page?
  • Our deletion policy provides a comprehensive list of actions to be taken before bringing a matter here. The general sense of such guidance is that deletion is a last resort which is only for hopeless cases and so good faith efforts should first be made to engage with the topic and its editors. This is consistent with our general policy on dispute resolution which urges that local discussions be tried first before escalating to another forum such as this. Failure to follow this guidance is disruptive because it tends to seem uncivil and overloads this process with cases which can be handled better locally. Drive by nominations have been considered vandalism by our veteran editors who have seen the vexatious nuisance that they may become. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:14, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • No amount of discussion would save an article that one believes to be unsalvageable. Why waste time waiting for a talk page discussion that may never come, especially on an article so rarely edited that it's likely on the watchlists of very few users? Powers T 15:51, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article has existed for over 3 years and has been edited by several learned editors. Discussion ought to start within this community because those editors are already familiar with the topic and engaged by it. Making a presumption that nobody cares seems both inaccurate and improper. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:04, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The suggestion to merge "Requiescat in pace" with "List of Latin phrases" might result in the whole being removed together as not an article about a dictionary but an article that is a little dictionary right in the middle of Wikipedia.--Fartherred (talk) 04:50, 23 October 2009 (UTC) Sorry, that was impertinent.--Fartherred (talk) 16:33, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I sympathize with the concern noted by Colonel Warden that this AfD can be part of administrative overload. I doubt that any amount of money can fix this. There are too many different types of articles to easily make communities of the editors. Perhaps it is best to just keep these communities separate and reduce problems by keeping dictionary articles in a different web site. I am sorry that the discussion is in AfD, but the aggravation has already been paid. It is best to discuss the relevant points and resolve the issue. If there truly are several learned editors who worked on "Requiescat in pace" and they do not make better arguments then have been made so far for keeping the article, it seems that it should not be kept in article form. Failure to have discussed matters in the talk page does not excuse the proponents of keeping this article from citing reasons for keeping it beyond "I like it." I like telephone directories, but I will not copy one in the middle of Wikipedia in order to have numbers readily at hand.--Fartherred (talk) 19:46, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment For what it is worth, I looked at the stats.grok.se site. It indicated that the Colonization of the Moon article had been viewed "0 times in 200909." Checking the edit history of Colonization of the Moon revealed 16 edits in that month. I would say that the accuracy of the site is limited.--Fartherred (talk) 20:45, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see the error that caused the incorrect output. I inadvertently included a trailing space on the end of the "Colonization_of_the_Moon_" article title which caused the computer to read it as a different title.--Fartherred (talk) 23:27, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Bearian suggests that "requiescat in pace" is a legal Latin phrase. Berian's comment should supported by a reference. I know of no legal use of that phrase. Perhaps it is used to mark the files of dead clients, but this would be an unofficial use. In any case, if it were significant in legal use, one would expect to find mention of it in the article "Requiescat in pace." The article does not mention any legal use.--Fartherred (talk) 21:10, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Thryduulf refers to the situation whereby Wiktionary rejects articles that it considers excessively long. Thryduulf offers this as a reason for Wikipedia accepting such articles. On the contrary, Wikipedia should not base its acceptance of articles upon what is rejected by other web sites. Wikipedia does not strive to be a home for homeless articles. Wikipedia strives to be the best encyclopedia that it can be.--Fartherred (talk) 17:29, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, that is a mischaracterisation of my comment. As an experienced Wiktionorian I know that Wiktionary does accept long entries, but equally I know that it does not accept encyclopaedia articles and that there is not point transwiking duplicate dictionary definitions. My belief is that the article we currently have here is a useful starting point for an encyclopaedia article that belongs on Wikipeida, and that Wiktionary already has adequate (although expandable) dictionary definitions for all relevant terms. Thryduulf (talk) 16:11, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Dream Focus belittles Wiktionary, supposedly intending that it is unreasonable to suggest that word articles be placed there. I have had no difficulty in finding Latin words and phrases that I looked for in Wiktionary.--Fartherred (talk) 17:34, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment The article has improved a lot since my proposed deletion, see the differences. As a matter of fact, the Chinese version zh:R.I.P. has been deleted and the content was moved to Wiktionary, because it contains definition only. --Quest for Truth (talk) 17:37, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • What happens to articles on other wikis is irrelevant to this discussion as all have different criteria, guidelines and policies. It is also entirely possible that the Chinese article was just a dictionary definition, but that implies nothing about the state of the English article. Thryduulf (talk) 18:58, 25 October 2009 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Requiescat_in_pace&oldid=1264817562"