Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Explicatus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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, defaulting to Keep. ELIMINATORJR 10:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Explicatus

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

This is all bullshit. It is just part of the name of a Rutman book. Been here since October 2005 too Moglex 19:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep "explicatus" is a Latin word which means explanation or exposition. Far from being 'just part of the name of a Rutman book' it is indeed, as the article says, an archaic literary term. Gilbert Clerke, a mathematician and sundial maker, published a book in 1682 called "Oughtredus explicatus" - an edition of William Oughtred’s famous 1647 algebra textbook Clavis Mathematica. Of course the nominator might consider Latin and old books bullshit too. Nick mallory 12:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep -- It is certainly a valid term, but some indication that this will amount to more than an albeit long dictionary term would be needed. --Tikiwont 13:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Very weak keep It has factual information, but it's not too large and would take someone who knew about it. I think it's slightly useful so, keep.--Kkrouni 16:59, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep This can use help from the Deletion Deleters. Marlith 18:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. I have found no evidence that the definition advanced in the article—"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"—has any applicability apart from the Rutman work the article cites. Oughtredus explicatus ("Oughtred Explained") and similarly titled books are commentaries on the works of other authors and do not support the usage the article describes. Deor 21:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Umm....Strong Keep? Much like explication de texte, all this really needs is to be expanded. Explicatus is indeed a Latin word and can even be called a literary genre of its period to some extent. I do not know, however, what the relation to explication de texte is, and if they might perhaps refer to the same thing. Redirect to explication de texte. After searching for a source in Annee Philologique and the OCD and tearning up nil, I'm starting to think the author of this article confused the two terms. CaveatLectorTalk 02:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Umm … Who exactly is denying that explicatus is a Latin word? The question is, Can you cite any uses of it as a noun (rather than a participle) that would justify the existence of this article? Where is the evidence that it "can even be called a literary genre of its period to some extent"? Deor 02:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
The nominator of this article called it 'bullshit' rather than a "latin word" for one. Nick mallory 03:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
And the AfD is about the article, not about the nominator. Deor 03:48, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. I oppose the redirect suggestion in CaveatLector's revised opinion above. There's no evidence in the article or elsewhere that explicatus has ever been used in a sense that matches the use of explication de texte in literary criticism. Deor 01:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Explicatus is a Latin noun, but I see no evidence that there was a literary genre by this name, or that there is a group of texts referred to as explicatus (the noun is 4th declension), or that explicatus has been used as an equivalent of explication de texte. In short, I doubt anyone will search for it, and see no point in keeping it around. (BTW, I was asked to take a look at this AfD in a message on my talk page.) --Akhilleus (talk) 15:07, 4 August 2007 (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.