Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Explicatus (2nd nomination)

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 delete as unsourced. Sandstein (talk) 19:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Explicatus

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

Orphan article that, after six months, needs a second look. The description given in the article,

An explicatus is a section (or often, an entire volume) of a written work that explains the methods used to collect and analyze the data or research presented in that work. Most often, an explicatus is rather detailed in terms of methodology and in some cases, also in the applications of data found.

may well describe what the one work cited elsewhere in the article consists of, but there's absolutely no evidence that the term (which simply means "explanation" as a noun or "explained" as a participle) has ever been used to denote such works in general. In the absence of reliable sources that support the particular usage adduced in the article, or any usage to refer to a specifiable genre of work, this fails WP:V. Deor (talk) 14:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - Unable to find any verification as per WP:V, even if I could Wikipedia is not a dictionary. BlinkingBlimey (talk) 15:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Google searches, including Google Books (try it, you'll see what I mean), don't suggest that this is a commonly used term in publishing. Moreover, the article implies that it is unusual for a book to have a section "that explains the methods used to collect and analyze the data or research presented in that work". Mandsford (talk) 18:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

  The text says the term isn't used anymore, not that "it is unusual ...". Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 19:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

  I'm afraid you've completely missed the point about what's implied to be unusual. Mandsford (talk) 23:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

• Weak keep: the term is part of an 1740 book title [1] or a modern Polish book [2] or a 1594 book [3], cover or a (17th century?) Latin book about Poland [4] or this or Magnus Hippocrates Cous Prosperi Martiani Medici Romani Notationibus Explicatus, 1626 [5] (attached description fits the WP definition). Explicatio (noun) is used in a 17th century book [6] and in 18th century book [7] and in 1661 Samuel Pordage's Mundorum Explicatio and 16th century Japonicae tabulae explicatio [8]. As a section it is used in an 1664 book [9] (probably not in the sense of WP definition).

The claim to delete it doesn't seem to be completely valid. Put in tag "source needed" to warn the reader, obscure medieval terminology takes more time to cover then the modern foreword, preface, ... for dummies or the popularity of XYZ explained titles. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 19:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment. In your first group of titles, the word is used as a participle (= "explained"), in most of the cases indicating that the work is a commentary on the work of another author. For instance, Magnus Hippocrates Cous Prosperi Martiani Medici Romani Notationibus explicatus means "[The Works of] Great Hippocrates of Cos Explained by the Notes of the Roman Physician Prospero Martiano." In none of these cases is explicatus used as a noun in the sense this article gives. Your second group are instances of the use of a completely different word—explicatio—that has nothing to do with this article. Deor (talk) 00:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete if reliable sources cannot be provided. Even if they can, copying to Wiktionary may be more appropriate. Terraxos (talk) 03:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
• copy The article is just a definition anyway, it belongs on Wiktionary. Beeblbrox (talk) 10:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The term "explicatus" has been used for a long time to denote a work that details methods or collected data used to furnish another, primary, work with factual information. As I stated when I wrote the Wikipedia entry here considered for deletion, Darret and Anita Rutman, two American history professors, have used the term and cite its use elsewhere. I will try to source some other uses of it, also. Just because the term is now rare doesn't mean it should be excluded from Wikipedia: in contrast, it seems all the more reason for it to be included given that some readers may not find a good definition of it elsewhere.Mike (talk) 03:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you can find any specific examples of the use of the term "to denote a work that details methods or collected data used to furnish another, primary, work with factual information" (other than the Rutman volume) or any relevant appearance of the term "in older dictionaries which many people won't bother to consult" (as you've said on the article's Talk page), I'll consider WP:V satisfied and cheerfully withdraw my nomination. I don't think you're going to have much luck, though. Deor (talk) 00:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep This sort of obscure minutiae is exactly the sort of material that belongs on wikipedia. Where else would you find a good explanation of it?

I agree that the article needs to be expanded and can be made better. That said, one gathers the impression from reading the comments of those who want to delete the article that whether an article should be on wikipedia or not is solely based upon their whims and wishes rather than on the site's avowed purpose of placing as much information into the public domain as possible. It would be unseemly for this to devolve into a popularity contest. Canadian Bobby (talk) 03:20, 30 January 2008 (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.