Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crack (craic)

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 no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 16:12, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Crack (craic)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The article merely describes the usage and origins of the word, which are perfectly appropriate topics for a dictionary, but not an encyclopedia. Both spellings of the word are already in Wiktionary so no need to transwiki. Recury 14:43, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep I was going to suggest a Merge/Redirect to Culture of Ireland but, per the information in the article itself, this would be far too simplistic. This seems to go sufficiently far past the point of being a dictionary definition. If there is an article on Whiskey in the Jar then there needs to be one on the craic. --IslaySolomon 15:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

• It doesn't go past an entry in a dictionary at all. It just gives the meaning, the usage and the word origin. Recury 16:47, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Either way, this is a cultural concept that is definitely notable enough to merit inclusion, but which cannot be covered adequately by any one existing article. The existing article may be far from perfect, but, in this case, deletion is not the answer. --IslaySolomon 19:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

• Notability is not the issue here. This is an encyclopedia. WP:NOT is not a guideline, it's a policy, and it's not negotiable. Recury 20:07, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

• Everything is negotiable in Wikipedia. In addition, the WP:NOT policy states: However, it may be important in the context of an encyclopedia article to describe just how a word is used to distinguish among similar, easily confused ideas, as in nation or freedom. In some special cases an article about an essential piece of slang may be appropriate. This is one of those special cases. If the current article is insufficient, then we need to expand it, not delete it. Jimgawn 12:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. My goodness, we have a policy just for cases like that: WP:WINAD. Sandstein 21:11, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Textbook dicdef: it merely lists all the meanings of the term. There may be an interesting cultural dimension to this slang term, but that is true of all words, and it certainly does not propel this article "sufficiently far past the point of being a dictionary definition." Allon Fambrizzi 03:22, 21 September 2006 (UTC)Allon Fambrizzi
• Delete and Redirect Fair enough, I suppose this can never be anything other than a glorified dictionary defintion, but it seems only fair to add a redirect to Culture of Ireland (or something similar) since this is a very searchable term. Also, if "craic" is going down, it should be taking "g'day" with it. --IslaySolomon 18:50, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep It should stay, in depth more explanitory than a simple dictionary entry, definite cultural value/extra info. User:Jozias
• Keep Craic is more than a word meriting a dictionary entry, it is also a cultural concept whose understanding is key to a broader understanding of Irish conversation and culture. 84.203.136.85 15:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete if not rewritten. At present this is a dictionary entry. It probably could be rewritten as an encyclopedia article, but is not one at present. JASpencer 06:58, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - certainly beyond a definition at this point, if only barely so. Needs some expansion, of course, but no less appropriate than dude. --SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 10:50, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This is not a dictionary, agreed. Craic is wider than a dictionary definition, it is a cultural concept which I don't think has been explained in enough detail here. If someone Irish could expand on this a bit more, that would be great. It was of great help to me, having heard this used in a cultural concept so many times. The last use of this I heard was around how the wealthy Irish were taking over the English racing scene. The Irish were everywhere and the English complaint on the Irish was summed up as "craic seems to be nothing more than people saying how great the craic is". User:patrickfitzg
• Keep per suggestions above. --Mal 14:21, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - it's a valuable cultural concept. The content does not simply list the meanings: it discusses it. To remove it from the encyclopaedia would be comparable to deleting beer or zeitgeist. Jimgawn 12:30, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - for reasons as stated by Jimgawn et al. Snalwibma 15:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. It's not merely a dictionary entry, but a cultural reference - Alison^✍ 16:59, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, but retitle Craic. This is a legitimate topic, and can be expanded beyond a dictionary definition.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:05, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment The current title, Crack (craic), is appropriate; Craic would perpetuate the misconception, which has arisen in the last 20 years or so, that the word was borrowed into English from Irish, when the reverse is the case. (Much more on this on the talk page.) Jimgawn 22:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Category:Words, to which I've just added this, has quite a lot of articles. One point of interest is the spelling, which has been altered from crack to craic to look more authentically Irish. Just check out the talk page to see how contentious this is. I've added a bit more to the text, with references. There is more to be said about craic; I think it's already over the non-dictionary threshold. It would be churlish to delete it and insist any recreation sprang fully formed past the point the article is now at. BTW page-rename debates have also taken place on the page; that's a separate issue from the present one. jnestorius^(talk) 21:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC)\
• Delete a passable dicdef (but WP:WINAD and why are the DOST/DSL missing anyway ?) to which has been added a fair bit of unsourced, made up stuff. Verifiable in the sense of being WP:NOT material only. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:13, 28 September 2006 (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.