576:
a new argument, namely that it is not an
English word — even though piles of authors do use it as such and have been doing so for decades at least — not only but also in English. 'Current English' mind you, not Shakespearean English. Again, a simple search... You also claim that the article as "the sole amplifier" promotes archontology.org. How do you explain publications that predate not only the article, or the WP itself? Not to to mention that they don't mention archontology.org either - none the least because it also did not yet exist. Besides, does the article on Google promote Google? Does the article on the UK promote the UK? Do the articles on any random book or TV series promote those?
512:
provided one: The 1646 book title (cited in the article) IS a definition - again, right there in the headline ("Archontologia
Cosmica, that is "). Is that not *directly* enough for you? That book fills 1,000+ pages with what the headline promises - not *in detail* enough? How is that any different from the example in WP:GNG, "The book-length history of IBM by Robert Sobel is plainly non-trivial coverage of IBM."? Does this mean that a company on which no such report was written, doesn't exist? Or do you need a secondary source saying that the company exists before accepting its existence?
279:
neologisms or original theories: nope (in academic use for well more than a century; s.b. for details); 7. failure to find reliable sources: nope (cf. article as of 17 Nov 2021); 8. notability guideline: nope (in academic use for well more than a century); 9. living person: nope; 10. redundant/useless template: nope (cf. counter-argument 5 below) 11. overcategorization: nope; 12. unused/obsolete/non-free: nope; 13. contrary to established separate policy: evidently not (for 16 yrs); 14. otherwise not suitable: evidently not (for 16 yrs).
572:
that day you can't possibly have... A mere 4 minutes later you proposed deletion altogether, falsely claiming that the original author invented the term. A simple search in Google Books or JStor or whatever could and does *easily* refute that argument. Is that arrogance or incompetence? What about due process & all that? No, it's the rules! Oh wait, not 'rules', but merely 'guidelines'. My mistake.
237:) made from Greek components, but in English "archontologies" are just known as kinds of directories, peerages, etc. The current article appears composed of OR, and was seemingly created to promote archontology.org on the web (which it does, since Knowledge acts as the sole amplifier for the invented English word). Without independent sources on "archontology" an article is not viable.
594:
plenty of
English-language text examples. Or would you seriously say that a word only becomes a word once some dictionary or other bothers to catch up with developments? So, before the publication of the first dictionary of the English language people didn't speak any English, they spoke only Norman French. And most of them only grunted, right? Chaucer? Just grunts.
601:
I provided several definitions of the term that do fit not only the literal meaning of the word (a -logy, i.e. science, of archons, i.e. rulers) along with several (easily googled) examples of academic publications in academic *English*, i.a., that do use the term in line with the meaning of the word
593:
And now it's back to the claim that it's not an
English word? (And only English words are allowed to be covered by the English WP. Which is of course why there was no WP article on WP until some dictionary bothered to declare this neologism a 'word', an English one no less. Right?) I've already cited
597:
At the risk of repeating myself: 'Archontology' was and continues to be used as an ordinary word in
English-language publications. Even GoogleTranslate happily used the word when I tasked it to translate the cited Russian encyclopedia entry. Turns out there even is a wikt entry on it. But then, wikt
575:
When I noticed the deletion proposal a couple days later I thought I'd invest a bit of my time and do a community service. So I took the time to write a draft (surely needs more sources, formatting, etc) to prevent the deletion & demonstrate the argument to be bogus. In response you came up with
548:
You prove the point. There is no detailed discussion of "archontology". Indeed, the word and its meaning don't even exist in current
English. Your invocation of a definition from 1824 with a completely different meaning from that proffered by the article confirms this is not a coherent notable topic
521:
Another one, more recently (a 1999 review of Engel1996, previously mentioned), again in convenient
English, and more to the point, and in more than one line, in case that'd be your next complaint: opens with a definition, in itself a quote, saying that archontology is "a branch of historical studies
567:
Seems I have to rehash once more: The article was created 16 years ago. It saw numerous edits, with none of the editors complaining about it not being an
English word (or did they?). There also are several sister articles in other languages. But hey, they *of course* don't know what they're talking
278:
1. speedy-deletion criteria met? evidently not; 2. copyright violations: nope; 3. vandalism: nope; 4. advertising/spam: not on the part of the 'inventor', long dead (cf. article as of 17 Nov 2021) — and not more than for any random book or TV show (s.b. for details); 5. content forks: nope; 6.
589:
Next you claimed that reading an article "required original research". In other words, once again you managed not only (1) to read my comment, (2) to look up the link, (3) to read the article in question, (4) to think about what you've read and (5) to write your response. Plus some 'OR' inbetween.
571:
Then one fine day you hopped along, and instead of e.g. first requesting additional sources (or did you?), you just deleted most of the article as "*likely* OR" (again, you, the expert, couldn't be bothered to check or at least request ...). Have you even read it? Judging by your edit history for
511:
Passing mention? It's the bloody headline. Is that not what you requested? "addressing the topic directly and in detail" - the cited article does address the topic *directly* (in the headline even) to then proceed in discussing it *in detail*. What more *do* you want? A definition? I have already
288:
Counter-argument 1a: My
English dictionary (1983; claims to contain 95,000 entries) doesn't contain the word 'wanker' - is that not an English word then? Must be "American"... It doesn't mention 'Covid' either, or even the internet or genome, mind you. Counter-argument 1b: If words are used in
480:
That's just a passing mention of the word in German, which required original research to extract. The concept in
English (as I said in the nomination) is not called "archontology" but is just known as a kind of directory making. If you're going to show the topic of "archontology" is worthy of
605:
So, to me saying "(Stukalova, 2001), which does also provide definition & *discussion*", you respond: "There is no detailed discussion of 'archontology'." Is this Monty Pythons, are we doing the Parrot sketch? Splendid. I'm clearly wasting my time here. No wonder the original author did
387:
Counter-argument 4b: Either way, the term is clearly used — and has been used long before any of us, incl. the original author, was born (cf. counter-argument 2 above). What the original author did, was to provide a definition and explanation of the term. Isn't that the whole point of an
401:
Counter-argument 5c: 'Necessity' is in the eye of the beholder. If a word is used and is not a synonym of another, then it is clearly not 'unnecessary'. Nobody is forced to read the article (or use the term for that matter), surely. Many though do (cf. counter-argument 2 above).
369:
Counter-argument 3a: OR is not in itself a reason for deletion, or is it nowadays? Where does it say so (in the WP:DP)? Besides, you better delete every plot summary of every book, film, TV episode, etc covered in the WP then! Instead, request additional sources, why don't you?
522:
which deals with office holders and dignitaries. Its place is next to governmental history among the auxiliary disciplines. Its adjoining fields are " (Kubinyi, A. (1999). The Hungatian Political Elite in the Middle Ages. Budapest Review of Books, 9(2-3), 65-70.
528:
Or how about neither English nor Hungarian for a change, a Russian encyclopedic entry: "АРХОНТОЛОГИЯ (от греч. ἄρχων, род. п. ἄρχοντος – начальник, правитель), одна из вспомогательных исторических дисциплин, изучающая историю гос. должностей. "
307:
A Hungarian-language book-title ("Engel, Pál (1996). Magyarország világi archontológiája 1301—1457") is translated into what I believe to be 'English' as "Hungary's secular archontology, 1301—1457" (books?id=ufiZDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA94)
396:
Counter-argument 5a: A word that has been used for centuries (in academic Latin, German, Hungarian, etc.) or at least decades (in academic English) is clearly not a neologism (again, cf. article as of 17 Nov 2021).
579:
Next you stated that without independent sources 'an article is not viable'. And your solution to that issue was of course not to request such sources, but to rather have the article deleted. After all, *you* know
202:
384:
Counter-argument 4a: Books published in/since the 17th century (mentioned in the article as of 17 Nov 2021) do certainly constitute independent sources. Not enough? Request additional sources, why don't you?
376:-language film in the 'English' wikipedia. Is that not promotion? Does that not consist of OR? Delete that then! Along with any other article on films, books, etc - esp. if not originally done in English...
310:
several other translations of Hungarian-language publications, e.g. a title translated as "New methods—New opportunities. Prosopography's new methods and its relation to traditional genealogy and
515:
Here's another more concise definition, in English even: Bibliotheca Britannica (1824), vol.3, p.15: "ARCHONTOLOGY, signifies any thing that respects the constitution of chief magistrates."
481:
treatment on Knowledge, you're going to need a source with an in depth discussion of what "archontology" is. If that's your best source it seems your're admitting there are no such sources.
450:
Mentioned in the article (sorry, forgot the proper ref: Wertner, M. (1894). Ungarns Palatine und Bane im Zeitalter der Árpáden — Archontologische Studie. Ungarische Revue, 14, 129—1):
399:
Counter-argument 5b: An encyclopedia like WP is there to provide explanations of words, esp. when such explanation would go beyond a single line fitting into a dictionary like wikt...
255:
per nom. I can't find any evidence that 'archontology' exists as a legitimate subject for an article either. Knowledge is not a platform for the promotion of unnecessary neologisms...
516:
583:
Additional claims of 'archontology' being a neologism are easily refuted as well. Again, a GooBooks/JSTOR search would do the trick. Alas, persistent lack of motivation or ability.
628:
is a couple of reliable sources with a detailed discussion of "archontology" (a dedicated article or book would be better still). This whole discussion arises from a posting at
694:
428:, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Is there even one semi-decent source on the topic of "archontology" that meets this criterion? If so, name it.
159:
196:
106:
91:
586:
So, I took some more time to refute those arguments at short notice, only to be *summarily* dismissed as "chaff", i.e. irrelevant. Thank you very much.
372:
Counter-argument 3b: archontology.org is but one website mentioned/listed. Is that 'promotion'? There's a wiki article titled "Ruler (film)" about a
535:
455:
403:
52:. As an aside, I would encourage contributors to future deletion discussions to be more concise. Prolix arguments do not always add a lot.
367:
Which 'current' do you mean? Pre-Nov 2021 (by the original author) or the rewrite (by me, *not* the original author - nor in his employ)?
607:
132:
127:
136:
86:
79:
17:
451:
217:
233:
The the word is in no RS English dictionaries (that I could find). It appears to have some currency as a Hungarian word, (
119:
320:
Romanian Review of (seemingly) 1977, containing the following sentence: "Enough with this absurd anachronism, the hybrid
184:
363:
Argument for deletion 3: "current article appears composed of OR, and was seemingly created to promote archontology.org"
289:
English-language texts (without explanation), are they not 'English' words? For examples cf. counter-argument 2 below.
163:
100:
96:
292:
Argument for deletion 2: "can't find any evidence that 'archontology' exists as a legitimate subject for an article"
345:
elsewhere one finds "Major works dealing with historical geography are also listed, as well as those dealing with
331:. Iowa State University Press (books?id=qw-CAAAAMAAJ, p.191) contains the sentence: "This is in a sense simply an
711:
40:
295:
Counter-argument 2: Dozens of examples of academic use of the word are easily available via Google Books alone (
606:(apparently) not bother. In short, this discussion is evidently going in circles, which is a waste of my time.
539:
459:
407:
178:
611:
532:
or the book mentioned in that entry (Stukalova, 2001), which does also provide definition & discussion:
260:
338:
the Masters Abstracts International of (seemingly) 1994 contains the phrase "Inseminate architecture: An
314:
based on the almanac of the parliamentary sessions of the Reform Era" (books?id=TXHQDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA90)
174:
707:
690:
641:
615:
562:
543:
490:
463:
437:
411:
324:* Constitution which we should wisely and calmly send to the archives..." (books?id=rUFNAAAAYAAJ, p.108)
264:
246:
61:
36:
123:
296:
224:
210:
602:
as well as the definition given in the article as well as the definitions I provided subsequently.
115:
67:
670:
380:
Argument for deletion 4: "Without independent sources on 'archontology' an article is not viable"
685:, with insufficient indication that it is a well-defined subject that needs a page unto itself.
666:
637:
558:
486:
433:
352:
a Polish researcher is described as follows: "His research interests include social history ;
256:
242:
75:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
706:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
686:
678:
57:
682:
549:
Knowledge can grapple with. For that to be the case we'd need some evidence in passes the
190:
452:
https://books.google.de/books?id=xCMVAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA129&dq=Archontologische+Studie
590:
All in the space of 9 minutes. Impressive! Though what you call 'OR' I'd call 'reading'.
234:
621:
629:
550:
523:
421:
633:
625:
554:
482:
429:
238:
388:
encyclopedia? Not concise enough? Too much opinion? Well, there's a tag for that.
285:
Argument for deletion 1: "in no RS English dictionaries", i.e. not an English word
282:
The 5 arguments for deletion aren't compelling. Allow me to elaborate one by one:
153:
533:
53:
632:
about whether archontology.org is a reliable source (spoiler: it isn't).
342:
reading of" (Masters Abstracts International, vol. 32, 3-6 @ Google Books)
420:
Lots of chaff there, but still no source that shows this topic satisfies
297:
https://www.google.com/search?q=archontological+study&tbm=books
530:
702:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
553:. Can you produce any source to satisfy this requirement?
356:
of the Late Middle Ages; " (books?id=hiUlDwAAQBAJ, p.xv)
149:
145:
141:
209:
392:Argument for deletion 5: "unnecessary neologisms"
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
714:). No further edits should be made to this page.
624:. Rather than personal attacks and hand-waving,
349:and heraldry." (books?id=gwwWAQAAMAAJ, p.387)
223:
8:
274:, because Reasons for deletion as per WP:DP:
107:Help, my article got nominated for deletion!
317:(Seemingly) Non-Hungarian examples include
335:application of the context principle."
303:being used in English-language texts:
7:
24:
92:Introduction to deletion process
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
598:is not reliable anyway, right?
1:
695:20:30, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
642:17:35, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
616:17:21, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
563:20:32, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
544:20:09, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
491:19:03, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
464:18:54, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
438:18:27, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
412:18:19, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
329:Paradigms in Political Theory
299:). Some examples of the term
265:08:50, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
247:03:06, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
62:14:41, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
82:(AfD)? Read these primers!
731:
669:. Seems to be yet another
327:Gold, Steven Jay (1993).
704:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
424:, addressing the topic
426:directly and in detail
164:edits since nomination
679:dictionary definition
80:Articles for deletion
626:all that's needed
97:Guide to deletion
87:How to contribute
722:
235:hu:Archontológia
228:
227:
213:
157:
139:
77:
34:
730:
729:
725:
724:
723:
721:
720:
719:
718:
712:deletion review
681:bulked up with
673:aiming to make
340:archontological
333:archontological
322:archontological
170:
130:
114:
111:
74:
71:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
728:
726:
717:
716:
698:
697:
671:personal essay
659:
658:
657:
656:
655:
654:
653:
652:
651:
650:
649:
648:
647:
646:
645:
644:
603:
599:
595:
591:
587:
584:
581:
577:
573:
569:
536:176.95.227.240
526:
519:
513:
500:
499:
498:
497:
496:
495:
494:
493:
471:
470:
469:
468:
467:
466:
456:176.95.227.240
443:
442:
441:
440:
415:
404:176.95.227.240
400:
398:
394:
393:
386:
382:
381:
371:
368:
365:
364:
360:
359:
358:
357:
350:
343:
336:
325:
316:
315:
294:
293:
287:
286:
276:
275:
268:
267:
231:
230:
167:
110:
109:
104:
94:
89:
72:
70:
65:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
727:
715:
713:
709:
705:
700:
699:
696:
692:
688:
684:
680:
676:
672:
668:
664:
661:
660:
643:
639:
635:
631:
627:
623:
619:
618:
617:
613:
609:
608:217.91.11.181
604:
600:
596:
592:
588:
585:
582:
578:
574:
570:
568:about, right?
566:
565:
564:
560:
556:
552:
547:
546:
545:
541:
537:
534:
531:
527:
524:
520:
517:
514:
510:
509:
508:
507:
506:
505:
504:
503:
502:
501:
492:
488:
484:
479:
478:
477:
476:
475:
474:
473:
472:
465:
461:
457:
453:
449:
448:
447:
446:
445:
444:
439:
435:
431:
427:
423:
419:
418:
417:
416:
414:
413:
409:
405:
391:
390:
389:
379:
378:
377:
375:
362:
361:
355:
351:
348:
344:
341:
337:
334:
330:
326:
323:
319:
318:
313:
309:
306:
305:
304:
302:
298:
291:
290:
284:
283:
281:
280:
273:
272:Do not Delete
270:
269:
266:
262:
258:
254:
251:
250:
249:
248:
244:
240:
236:
226:
222:
219:
216:
212:
208:
204:
201:
198:
195:
192:
189:
186:
183:
180:
176:
173:
172:Find sources:
168:
165:
161:
155:
151:
147:
143:
138:
134:
129:
125:
121:
117:
113:
112:
108:
105:
102:
98:
95:
93:
90:
88:
85:
84:
83:
81:
76:
69:
66:
64:
63:
59:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
703:
701:
674:
667:AndyTheGrump
665:per nom and
662:
425:
395:
383:
373:
366:
354:archontology
353:
347:archontology
346:
339:
332:
328:
321:
312:archontology
311:
301:archontology
300:
277:
271:
257:AndyTheGrump
252:
232:
220:
214:
206:
199:
193:
187:
181:
171:
116:Archontology
73:
68:Archontology
49:
47:
31:
28:
197:free images
687:XOR'easter
677:happen; a
708:talk page
683:synthesis
37:talk page
710:or in a
160:View log
101:glossary
39:or in a
634:Alexbrn
622:WP:MWOT
555:Alexbrn
483:Alexbrn
430:Alexbrn
239:Alexbrn
203:WP refs
191:scholar
133:protect
128:history
78:New to
663:Delete
630:WP:RSN
551:WP:GNG
422:WP:GNG
374:Telugu
253:Delete
175:Google
137:delete
54:Stifle
50:delete
675:fetch
620:Holy
580:best.
218:JSTOR
179:books
154:views
146:watch
142:links
16:<
691:talk
638:talk
612:talk
559:talk
540:talk
487:talk
460:talk
434:talk
408:talk
261:talk
243:talk
211:FENS
185:news
150:logs
124:talk
120:edit
58:talk
225:TWL
158:– (
693:)
640:)
614:)
561:)
542:)
525:).
489:)
462:)
454:-
436:)
410:)
263:)
245:)
205:)
162:|
152:|
148:|
144:|
140:|
135:|
131:|
126:|
122:|
60:)
689:(
636:(
610:(
557:(
538:(
518:.
485:(
458:(
432:(
406:(
259:(
241:(
229:)
221:·
215:·
207:·
200:·
194:·
188:·
182:·
177:(
169:(
166:)
156:)
118:(
103:)
99:(
56:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.