Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hallow

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. - Mailer Diablo 15:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hallow

Hallow (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Article is a dictionary definition of a word, which according to 'what wikipedia is not' belongs on wiktionary. Sandpiper 07:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. This is not a dictionary, and is probably speculation for Harry Potter 7.Olin 13:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and Improve. The article seems to be more than a dictionary definition as it gives a history of the word. RockerballAustralia 09:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and Improve as per RockerballAustralia. --Phill ^{talk Edits} 09:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep - Editor Sandpiper, with all due respect, is incorrect. The Hallows article, while possibly constituting a stub that is under construction, already constitutes (after only 2 days of existence) far more than a simple "dictionary definition of a word", although it certainly contains definition material (cited to dictionary). The article also links to the existing Wiktionary entry on the word, for a "more proper" definition and derivation reference. There are well cited definitions and usage examples, regarding Halloween and Hallowmas, and a well cited reference to Hallows literature (Tolkien's use of Hallows in The Return of the King). The "Immediate Deletion" recommendation appears to be connected to the ongoing debate at the Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows article on the Talk Page. Admittedly, the article was also created in response to the same debate. The reason to keep is this: As the seventh J. K. Rowling Harry Potter book comes closer to release, many many young people and adults will be looking for information on what Hallows might refer to, and it is the Wikipedia editors' duty to at the very least provide information on what the Hallows "currently are" (outside of the Potter books). That said, speculation about what Rowling's Deathly Hallows might be, should be at the very least restrained and controlled, if not banned. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 12:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Virtually all the material in the article was exported from the Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows article, which is the sole reason for the creation of this article. All the material fits the definition of a dictionary entry as described in the relevant page from what wikipedia is not. The current wiktionary entry is a one line stub. This article as it stands is exactly what ought to be on the wiktionary page. Now, I have no objection to the material being reinserted into the page where it came from, where it served to explain the rather obscure title of the book. But by itself, it is only a definition, because the word has no other real-life usage. This article has become the centre of a debate on the 'Deathly Hallows' page. I would not have taken this to AfD so quickly if it was a simple stub, but the conclusion of the content debate on DH rather depends upon whether this is in itself a legitimate article. I contend that its sole reason for existing is to contain a definition of the word for the benefit of the parent article, and it would much better exist inside that parent. As a separate article it serves to confuse rather than inform readers, who would expect the information to be in 'Deathly Hallows'. There is no issue of excessive length in the parent articleSandpiper 21:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Move to wiktionary certinly a dictionary definition. ANHL 11:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Note - There is already an independant hallow entry at the wiktionary --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 12:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

which has a stub one sentence definition.Sandpiper 21:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, referenced and covers also usage and background in a way that a dictionary will never do. In addition, this appears to be a content dispute. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 15:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

actually, according to the 'Wiki is not a dictionary' page this extended definition is just exactly what a wiktionary entry ought to be. Sandpiper 21:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I'm not exactly sure where this belongs, whether on the encyclopedia (it does provide more than a mere definition, which is not against WP:NOT) or on the dictionary (it is basically an elaborate definition, with uses), but I strongly support the keeping of this information somewhere on Wikipedia or its sister projects. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 01:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Change to Keep per below reasoning and my above statement. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 16:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Useful for the parent article which surely will be a top read article, it's too bad wikipedia doesn't have contactable sections, but it doesn't so making a new page is whats going to end up happening for now. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Owlofcreamcheese (talk • contribs) 03:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC).
• Keep and improve Okay, right now the article is only a bit more than a definition, but it has improved, and I suspect it will continue to improve. This articles very existence has been helpful in reducing conflict about HP7 to this page. If the article can keep up a comprehensive list of non-speculation about HP7, but rather what Hallows are as used in various pieces of literature, I think it's worth keeping. Tuvas 16:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Quote from WP:WINAD referring to what a wikipedia article is.

Articles are about the people, concepts, places, events, and things that their titles denote. The article octopus is about the animal: its physiology, its use as food, its scientific classification, and so forth.

Hallow fits this description. It is an article about the concept of "Hallows". It talks about what hallows are considered in many contexts. Compare this to the same line for the wikitionary:

Articles are about the actual words or idioms in their title. The article octopus is about the word "octopus": its part of speech, its pluralizations, its usage, its etymology, its translations into other languages, and so forth.

This article does not fit this criteria. It doesn't deal with it's part of speech, puralizations, usage, etc. It only deals with the concept of Hallows, which are mentioned in many works of fiction. Thus I conclude that the article fits far better the entry for wikipedia than wikitionary. Tuvas 17:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Super speedy keep, this article is far more than just a definition. Also, the existence of this article will partly solve the persistent debate which lasts over a month just circling around the "hallow" issue. Apple•_•w••o•_•r••m•_• 16:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Not sure what it looked like when this AfD appeared, but right now it looks like a well sourced and very informative encyclopedia article about several different historical and mythical items referred to as "Hallows", far more than a dictionary definition. --Maelwys 18:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy keep: I think we all know that Sandpiper has initiated this just to prove a point and to try to push speculations back into the HP article. This reason is already enough to debunk this deletion request. But we can also see that this article is absolutely not a "dictionary" entry since it contains a history of the word in the literary context (moreover, the fact that the Grail is a hallow, increases the value of this article in the perspective of a "arthurian legends" category). You see, hallows are not mere objects, they are a the very center of many, many myths, both christian and celtic, and that's precisely the focus of the article, to replace hallows in their literary context. Thus this article is extremely relevant, and certainly won't be deleted just because of some petty rivalries over speculations about a fantasy novel that has not much to do with the real focus of the article. Sandpiper seems to have forgotten that the word Hallow has existed way before HP, and that such an article is just an essential part of a bigger work here in Wikipedia, on english traditions, and always leading the discussion back to his own petty disputes about an ultra-minor aspect of Hallows, shows Sandpiper's unability to have a general view on things. Folken de Fanel 20:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Please be civil and assume good faith 01:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

It is important that this matter be settled before any decision on the HP page is decided, rather than this page being deleted one month afterwards. Wouldn't want that to happen, would we? Note that the WINAD page says about articles which would not be appropriate for wikipedia:

note that dictionary and encyclopedia articles do not differ simply on grounds of length. A full dictionary article (as opposed to a stub dictionary article, which is simply where Wiktionary articles start from) will contain illustrative quotations for each listed meaning; etymologies; translations; inflections; links to related and derived terms; links to synonyms, antonyms, and homophones; a pronunciation guide in various dialects, including links to sound files; and usage notes; and can be very long indeed. Sandpiper

• Keep per above. Article meets WP:Good definitions Arfan 01:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I have read the section, and for the life of me, I can't see whether this is an argument for inclusion or exclusion from wikipedia or wiktionary. It seems to be more an observation on what makes a good entry in either. Sandpiper

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.