Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ubiquity
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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:30, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Ubiquity
dictionary definition, even sites a dictionary Vicarious 11:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - Wikipedia is not a dictionary, already at Wiktionary. MER-C 11:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - per MER-C, and this article offers nothing more than a definition and usage of the term. Jayden54 12:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete and redirect to omnipresence, where the two concepts are distinguished. While the article I read is more than a "dictionary definition", the additional parts are some kind of marketing gibberish that strikes me as beneath notice. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per MER-C. Wikitionary is enough: "Ubiquity" shouldn't be ubiquitous. --Howrealisreal 16:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per MER-C. Danny Lilithborne 18:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --MasterA113 13:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- I am just an everyday user so maybe I am not smart enough about this, but I don't see why wikipedia should not also be a dictionary any more than why my cell phone should not also be a calculator. Maybe wikipedia would have been bad if it was too much of a dictionary at first, but now that there is so much content it doesnt make any sense to exclude abstract terms. In fact, foreign users may not know whether a term is abstract or not and may not know whether to go to wiktionary or wikipedia. Why make them choose? I have started using wikipedia a lot more lately. Part of the appeal is that whenever I wonder what something objectively is, I can just go to wikipedia. I did that for this word and found you plan to delete it. Sure, there is another site, there is wiktionary, but everyday people like one stop shopping. Every word has a definition, a history, some famous thematic uses, etc. Even if the latter may take a long time to be noted, it should still be included. Wikipedia should answer the question "What is ________?" By finding excuses to send people to other sites for a common 5-10% of queries wikipedia makes itself less convenient. Many wikipedia entries like steel, hammer, music, and dog will be in dictionaries too. Why exclude definitions? Should google start blocking searches that include the word definition so that people can go to some other site too? Maybe barnes and noble should stop selling dictionaries and focus on being a book store. A few definitions in wikipedia might not fit the five year plan, but to the common user, unconcerned with ideology, they can only provide an additional benefit. - Marc
- everyday people like one stop shopping. — Then they should use one of the several almalgamation services such as answers.com that cater to such people.
Every word has a definition, a history, some famous thematic uses, etc. — And documenting all that, for all words of all languages, as well as providing translations, pronunciations, inflections, usage notes, synonyms, antonyms, related words, and others, is the ambitious goal of Wiktionary. It is not the goal of this project. The goal of this project is to be an encyclopaedia. Its articles are about the people, concepts, places, events, and things that the words denote. So show by citing sources that discuss the subject that an encyclopaedia article can be had, that will not be a perpetual stub (unexpandable perpetual stubs being deletable per our Wikipedia:Deletion policy), on the concept of ubiquity.
Maybe barnes and noble should stop selling dictionaries and focus on being a book store. — That isn't analogous, and so is irrelevant. Uncle G 16:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- everyday people like one stop shopping. — Then they should use one of the several almalgamation services such as answers.com that cater to such people.
- Here's a good reason why Wikipedia shouldn't be a dictionary: because we have Wiktionary. Danny Lilithborne 06:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- There is template:wi that can go up to direct people to the Wiktionary page. It may not be the best method, but it could direct people like Marc to the correct project. --Howrealisreal 14:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- The message that appears for non-existence pages also directs readers to Wiktionary. Uncle G 16:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- There is template:wi that can go up to direct people to the Wiktionary page. It may not be the best method, but it could direct people like Marc to the correct project. --Howrealisreal 14:09, 29 November 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.
