| Revision as of 20:39, 17 May 2010 editGiacomoReturned (talk | contribs)Rollbackers11,926 edits →Afflatus: I rather think it is up to you to provide reasons why the page should be deleted, not the other way around← Previous edit | Revision as of 20:40, 17 May 2010 edit undoGiacomoReturned (talk | contribs)Rollbackers11,926 edits →Afflatus: I rather think it is up to you to provide reasons why the page should be deleted, not the other way aroundNext edit → | ||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
| *'''Keep''' – Has Wolfkeeper finally managed to convince someone else of their eccentric interpretation of ]? But that still doesn't change the fact that we keep articles on words ''if and only if'' they are notable. ] ] 18:55, 17 May 2010 (UTC) | *'''Keep''' – Has Wolfkeeper finally managed to convince someone else of their eccentric interpretation of ]? But that still doesn't change the fact that we keep articles on words ''if and only if'' they are notable. ] ] 18:55, 17 May 2010 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Comment''' - this discussion seems to be an example of ]. Can anyone provide evidence for "Afflatus" being notable as a concept, outside of "Romantic Afflatus" ? ] (]) 20:00, 17 May 2010 (UTC) | *'''Comment''' - this discussion seems to be an example of ]. Can anyone provide evidence for "Afflatus" being notable as a concept, outside of "Romantic Afflatus" ? ] (]) 20:00, 17 May 2010 (UTC) | ||
| ::I rather think it is up to you to provide reasons why the page should be deleted, not the other way around. It's a valuable link and a useful subject to be able to refer to. I suggest this is closed |
::I rather think it is up to you to provide reasons why the page should be deleted, not the other way around. It's a valuable link and a useful subject to be able to refer to. I suggest this is closed now as speedy kep. <small><span style="border:1px solid blue;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 20:39, 17 May 2010 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 20:40, 17 May 2010
Afflatus
- Afflatus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
In my opinion, this article is a violation of WP:NOT, because it's a definition of a word. It does not significantly expand on the content of the Wiktionary entry -. The term "Romantic Afflatus" has been widely used, but I'm not sure whether it meets general inclusion requirements, and there's a good discussion of the concept at Artistic inspiration#Enlightenment and Romantic models. If "Romantic Afflatus" is a suitable topic for an article, it do not believe it should be under this title, because Cicero's one metaphorical use of the word "Afflatus" is a separate matter to the concept. Claritas (talk) 17:55, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep I cannot understand why this is nominated for deletion. It explains very well and little known term that is a blue link (proving its need) in several articles. Giacomo 18:00, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep -- obviously encyclopedic. Compare the brief Wiktionary entry with our short but useful article. No need to banish such clearly useful things to Wiktionary. Antandrus (talk) 18:09, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep – Has Wolfkeeper finally managed to convince someone else of their eccentric interpretation of WP:NOT? But that still doesn't change the fact that we keep articles on words if and only if they are notable. Hans Adler 18:55, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment - this discussion seems to be an example of WP:ITSNOTABLE. Can anyone provide evidence for "Afflatus" being notable as a concept, outside of "Romantic Afflatus" ? Claritas (talk) 20:00, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- I rather think it is up to you to provide reasons why the page should be deleted, not the other way around. It's a valuable link and a useful subject to be able to refer to. I suggest this is closed now as speedy kep. Giacomo 20:39, 17 May 2010 (UTC)