Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Etymology of the word Jew

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 of the debate was KEEP. —Simetrical (talk) 21:08, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Etymology of the word Jew

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and etymologies do not deserve their own articles. Transwiki to Wiktionary (and merge with Jew if appropriate). —Simetrical (talk) 06:23, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

• • Err, Simetrical, this article was once part of the article Jew and it was spun-off (with many other sub-articles since they made the Jew page toooooo large... get it ... not more than 32k and all that stuff...?) and precisely because it is a complicated subject in and of itself it was judged by a number of learned editors to be worthy of a comprehensive article. Unfortunately, you are focusing on the word "etymology" here in its narrowest sense, which is NOT what the article is about, if you bother to read it carefully. IZAK 10:37, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

  I did, in fact, read the article carefully, and it is clearly a discussion of nothing but etymology and word usage. As such, I feel that it belongs on Wiktionary, and I don't think it belongs in two places. Clearly, I'm outvoted.

  As for merging with Jew, obviously not the entire article could be merged. I meant maybe a paragraph in Jew and the rest at Wiktionary. —Simetrical (talk) 20:31, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Nobody says WP is a dictionary, but the etymology of this particular word and controversies around it are worth entire encyclopedic article. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 06:38, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Jew. Etymologies belong in books about it or in dictionaries, but if there is already an article on the word, there's no harm in throwing in a section about the etymology of it. JHMM13 (T | C) 06:41, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, Jew already has a good summary paragraph with a link to this article, which is on a reasonably important and encyclopedic topic. Snurks ^{T C} 10:40, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The content of the article is certainly encyclopaedic. If the name was "origin of the term "Jew"", just like many other articles have a section like this, there would not be this fuss. Sorry if the term etymology annoys you, but it is correct and should stay. Batmanand 13:00, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep The article is encyclopedic, and to merge it with "Jew" would kind of much up that article, would recommend reworking the Etymology section of "Jew" to link over to this article. DeathThoreau 15:52, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Dictionaries do not contain articles like this one. Rhollenton 16:06, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep And I hope this establishes a clear precedent that etymology articles are okay :) We're thinking about branching the bloated etymology section of Odin into its own article. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 16:20, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Haukur Þorgeirsson. Etymological articles should be encouraged and nurtured here. -- JJay 18:40, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per reasons given above. This one is definitely notable. And etymology is about a lot more than mere definitions; it tells you a lot about history, which sure as hell belongs in an encyclopedia. --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 20:15, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep for above reasons. Olorin28 20:27, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, not a dictionary definition, and there is no policy excluding etymology articles from Wikipedia (nor should there be). Where, exactly, would an expansive etymology article be appropriate if not an encyclopedia? Certainly not a dictionary. - Jersyko talk 20:47, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I would just like to note that to my knowledge, expansive etymologies are very much a part of Wiktionary's mission, which brings up the question of whether we should have articles on exactly the same thing in two different MediaWiki projects; lengthy etymologies certainly aren't considered out of place in dictionaries such as the OED; and I would never think of an individual word's etymology as being encyclopedic, personally. But it seems that's just me, and JHMM13. —Simetrical (talk) 22:45, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep While etymology is not normally worth a seperate article in an encylcopedia, it does make sense to cover it in an artilce on the term. Then, if that article is too large, it would also make sense to split it out. I have no problem with duplicate information in other Wiki projects, if the information belongs in both places. Mjchonoles 03:12, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Etymology is a window on cultural history. Where words have strong historic resonance, extended treatment of their etymologies may well be encyclopedia material. This article is one example of such. Smerdis of Tlön 04:34, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, because User:Simetrical obviously has no idea how the articles relating to Jew are necessary and are connected to it and are absolutely needed (see my comments above), sheesh. IZAK 10:37, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

  Thank you for your generosity and civility, and thank you as well for explaining why this belongs on Wikipedia and not Wiktionary above. —Simetrical (talk) 20:31, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep worthwhile encyclopedic content.--Alhutch 10:49, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Encyclopedic and interesting. No reason to delete. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:54, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per Haukur Þorgeirsson. Scoo 16:06, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This seems such a strong consensus that I'd suggest we close and speedy-keep at this point. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:44, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
• Looks like a Speedy keep to me. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:53, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

  Definitely looks like we have a consensus here, yeah. No point in keeping that ugly template up. —Simetrical (talk) 20:31, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Keep This is not a word in a typical sense - contains much deeper meaning and good and bad connotations as to transcend the normal definition of etymology. iyao 20:07, 12 December 2005 (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.