Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Softness

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 of the debate was redirect --Ichiro 02:28, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Softness

Can this ever be any more than a dictdef? Grutness...wha? 00:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep - Most dictionary nouns are also worthy of being included in an encyclopedia. I find it ridiculous that people try to save vast amounts of ancient discussions in archives and the most worthless trivial subjects but delete the most basic subjects. Bensaccount 01:37, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, per nom. If there's anything to it, it can go on Soft matter. Tom Harrison Talk 01:41, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Soft matter is a completely different subject - It deals with matter that can not be categorized as liquid or solid. Bensaccount 01:43, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. PJM 01:59, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I know it is easy to delete things if you call them dicdefs but please think about what you are doing. Just being a dicdef, or just being short, does not warrant deletion. Bensaccount 02:01, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
      • FWIW, I sort through 100-150 stubs per day. Of them, I rarely nominate more than one per day here - and after a few hundred stubs you can usually spot the ones which are or are not savable. So yes, I did think about what i was doing to nominate this. I far more frequently fix up things other people had nominated here. This one, though, looks like just a dictdef is all that it could be - and disctdefs belong in Wiktionary, not here.Grutness...wha? 10:53, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Yes, it is easy to delete entries that don't conform to Wiki policy, Bensaccount. Please see WP:NOT. PJM 23:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Being a substub article that can never be expanded, or being an outright dictionary article that cannot ever be other than a dictionary article, does. This article isn't a dictionary article, because it is an article about the concept of softness, not an article about the word softness. But if you want to argue that it is a stub that can be expanded, then demonstrate that, exactly as I did at kindness. There's no better argument that an article can be expanded from perpetual stub status than a stub article with substantial references and further reading. Uncle G 06:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Cyberevil 02:46, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Hardness. A notable property of rocks and such. Blackcats 04:46, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to hardness. – Seancdaug 10:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep we have articles for Light and Dark whats wrong with Hardness and Softness ? Jcuk 10:23, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
    • An article on electromagnetic radiation and an article on the absense of illumination (The article is actually darkness, as per our naming conventions.) are not two sides of the same coin. Uncle G 06:44, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
      • I cant see that defining softness as being a lack of hardness is any different to defining darkness as being a lack of light Jcuk 15:46, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
        • Please read our articles on light and darkness to see what they are actually about. Uncle G 17:29, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand or (if not expanded) redirect to hardness. Karol 11:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:NOT a dictionary. plain old policy, no matter how much you beg. Werdna648T/C\@ 12:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Hardness per above. Ben's claim that most dictionary nouns deserve articles may be true, but they should contain encyclopedic material, not dictionary material. - Mgm|(talk) 12:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
    • The demarcation of which you speak is entirely imaginary. Encyclopedic material is often the same as dictionary material. A compendium of information must include definitions. Not only must it include them it must strive to make all its entries definitive concise and eloquent - as much like definitions as possible. Bensaccount 21:43, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
      • There is probably a mechanism for changing Wikipedia policy. If you think Wikipedia must be a dictionary to fullfil its mission, changing that policy might be a good thing to try. Tom Harrison Talk 22:12, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
      • The distinction between a dictionary article and an encyclopaedia article is quite real, and is the use-mention distinction. That some editors get that distinction wrong, despite the good advice to avoid having "X refers to" and "X is a word that means" in encyclopaedia articles that is given in the Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles, does not mean that there is not a distinction. See also encyclopaedic dictionary. Uncle G 06:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Hardness per above. Perhaps with a little note for the irretrievably dumb that the opposite of hardness is softness? Dan 18:43, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Great so not only can we save an entire page worth of space on Wikipeida (which can instead be put to good use for something like Nidoking), we also get to insult anyone who follows a link to softness by making them look at the entirely opposite subject and making them fill in the rest. Bensaccount 21:59, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Just as with ugliness and beauty, yes. Uncle G 06:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
        • Well... softness is a dictionary definition, that's all. Hardness is a scientific term of which softness is a lack of the same. Dan 17:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Hardness per above. I'd say merge but there isn't enough content. --Bletch 00:04, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect. This didn't need to come through AfD. Soo 01:24, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect as per above. -- Hinotori(talk)|(ctrb) 16:11, 6 January 2006 (UTC)--Alf melmac 12:05, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect works for me. --Alf melmac 12:05, 7 January 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.