740:.Turning to Rhododendrites' proposal: I don't really understand the article's claim about Klaus Berger. The use of the word "gnome" to mean "maxim" is definitely ancient Greek, so Berger didn't invent it. He may have used it in a new way or brought it into prominence or something, but if so, the primary source isn't going to verify that claim. Besides which, same issue as before: I don't see how any of the content from
639:(policy) says that this is a valid reason for deletion. Others have argued that the content could be moved elsewhere, or that the page could be rewritten into a broad-concept article, but if you're saying that page should simply be kept as-is, it would be helpful if you could explain why you don't think NOTDICT applies.
452:, who coined the term. Right now, the article has only one source -- Berger -- so there's nothing that couldn't just be moved over there. If someone wants to build it out later, no prejudice against them doing so. With no independent secondary sourcing in the article at all, however, it's better elsewhere. —
487:
I didn't get deep enough in the sourcing to know. If you see that the specific term "gnome" as defined by Berger and used in rhetoric has a connection to "gnomic poetry" and not to any other merge target other than Berger, I don't object, though I'd still default to sending it to the Berger article
732:, except the claim that gnomes are usually in hexameter. This claim is not supported by the EB source, and I think it's generally bad practice to merge unsourced content. As for the two sentences about Berger, I can't see a place for them in that article. So as it stands, I don't see anything from
402:
with considerable what-is-a-gnome discussion). In general, leaning too heavily on NOTDICT to the exclusion of BCA tends to disadvantage our coverage of fields (including e.g. most of the humanities, soft social sciences, and law) in which much of the scholarly action is precisely about the
752:
could be written about gnomes in the Klaus Berger article, but that would require research to be done and new content to be written, at which point you're not really proposing a merge but rather an expansion of one article and the redirection of the other.So I don't think a merge would be
681:
My goal with the merge suggestion is to provide a better article to a reader who is trying to learn about this concept. The current stub would be adequate (IMO) if there were no good merge target, but it's better to merge or redirect given the presence of a good target.
254:. There is no clear redirect target and the disambiguator makes it an unlikely search term, so deletion seems the best option. (I don't feel that a soft redirect to Wiktionary would be helpful in this case, as there is already a Wiktionary link at
390:, in view of the scholarly discussion of what exactly a gnome is and whether/how it should be distinguished from a maxim (much of which seems, interestingly, to be particular to the Anglo-Saxonist community, e.g.
208:
506:
This isn't an article - it is a definition of an obscure meaning of the term, and nothing else. Not sure if a redirect to the creator of the term is better than a redirect to
Wiktionary, or just deleting it.
660:. There doesn't seem to be a consensus here about what to do so I'm suggesting we kick the question out of AfD and let editors do whatever reorganization is needed without the threat of deletion.
813:, to help us arrive at a consensus (and to make life easier for our hard-working AFD closers)? No obligation to change your !vote or comment further if you don't wish to. (Also pinging
421:(which already has some brief discussion of the English medieval literature that seems to be associated with the more specific definitions of "gnome"), so I'll join in supporting a
635:
I don't think anyone has said that the article should be deleted because it's a stub. My concern, echoed by
Oaktree and Walt Yoder, was that this is a dictionary definition, and
165:
716:
I hope you don't mind, but in the interest of avoiding a no-consensus outcome, I'd like to discuss this a little further. When proposing a merge, the obvious question is
278:
202:
565:
So, we have editors arguing for Delete, Keep and Merge to two different article targets. In three words, no consensus yet. And closers do not issue Super Votes.
97:
757:
seems to be the most helpful target from the reader's perspective. If you (Rhododendrites and siroχo) agree, then this might bring us closer to a consensus.
112:
523:(retracted my above !vote) I've investigated the scholar results a bit, and I think this term is heavily enough influenced by its own roots in
138:
133:
142:
876:
should be one of the suggestions displayed based on that partial entry. That seems useful and reason enough to keep the redirect per
92:
85:
17:
125:
614:
S are not a problem. I'm confident we'll eventually determine the best organization for this material. There's no rush to delete. ~
822:
762:
644:
286:
267:
398:
is said author's earlier MPhil thesis that also delves into the definition of "gnome" at considerable length; here is another
753:
appropriate, but I'm happy to !vote redirect rather than delete if there's a feeling that the content ought to be preserved.
223:
106:
102:
190:
554:
351:
784:
691:
540:
479:
337:
317:
908:
40:
818:
758:
640:
282:
263:
169:
258:, a more likely landing point for anyone searching for a definition.)This is a contested PROD; it was challenged by
745:
449:
717:
184:
889:
867:
840:
826:
787:
766:
694:
676:
664:
648:
623:
598:
579:
543:
516:
497:
482:
461:
438:
412:
371:
340:
290:
271:
67:
417:
On review of the arguments and sources I'm convinced that the BCA of my dreams is at least equally viable at
661:
180:
309:
255:
904:
129:
36:
391:
230:
512:
636:
251:
863:
836:
707:
594:
490:
467:
454:
216:
366:
297:
239:
877:
434:
408:
250:. It is not a distinct concept, and consequently should not be the subject of an article, per
81:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
903:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
611:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
873:
817:
so they aren't left out of the developing discussion, but again, no obligation to comment.)
779:
741:
733:
725:
686:
589:
does not appear to have caught on as a term. Vaguely DICDEF. Super !votes sound incredible!
535:
474:
332:
196:
121:
73:
399:
387:
800:
508:
885:
859:
832:
804:
672:
619:
590:
395:
853:
810:
809:
Following on from the above, would either of you be willing to support a redirect to
772:
754:
737:
729:
721:
524:
426:
418:
361:
53:
814:
430:
404:
159:
776:
711:
683:
653:
532:
471:
329:
316:
itself disambiguates the similar concept). However there is a decent amount of
724:
already defines the word "gnome"; there is nothing in the opening sentence of
881:
668:
630:
615:
394:
is a review of a book that I don't have access to that discusses the topic;
259:
531:
to that location (until an editor is able to split out more than a stub). —
488:
and defer to more knowledgeable editors to make bold changes from there. —
570:
301:
247:
58:
305:
243:
313:
296:
As a direct solution to the issue raised in nomination, links to
899:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
557:
to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
354:
to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
238:"Gnome" is used by various authors as a synonym for either
470:
what do you think of my merge alternate proposal below? —
658:(until an editor is able to split out more than a stub)
262:
on the grounds that "WP:NOTDICT can be controversial".
155:
151:
147:
215:
568:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
360:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
229:
858:- Although, I agree it's an unlikely search term.
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
911:). No further edits should be made to this page.
872:When someone types "gnome" into the search box,
277:Note: This discussion has been included in the
279:list of Language-related deletion discussions
8:
113:Help, my article got nominated for deletion!
276:
657:
386:This seems like a good use case for a
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
24:
98:Introduction to deletion process
1:
771:I'm fine with a redirect to
831:That's fine, the redirect.
88:(AfD)? Read these primers!
928:
890:15:09, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
868:21:14, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
841:14:07, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
827:05:10, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
788:20:10, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
767:16:29, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
746:Klaus Berger (theologian)
736:that should be merged to
695:21:34, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
677:18:36, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
649:15:51, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
624:13:30, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
599:15:27, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
580:06:31, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
544:01:44, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
517:00:09, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
498:13:19, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
483:06:32, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
462:02:12, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
450:Klaus Berger (theologian)
439:05:25, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
403:disputation of terms. --
341:09:52, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
322:so it might be better to
291:05:08, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
272:05:08, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
68:05:58, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
901:Please do not modify it.
413:18:26, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
372:06:42, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
32:Please do not modify it.
819:Sojourner in the earth
759:Sojourner in the earth
641:Sojourner in the earth
310:gnome (disambiguation)
283:Sojourner in the earth
264:Sojourner in the earth
256:Gnome (disambiguation)
170:edits since nomination
744:could be worked into
728:that is missing from
388:broad-concept article
312:page (indeed the way
86:Articles for deletion
527:that the article be
328:(new !vote below) —
563:Relisting comment:
308:could be added to
298:maxim (philosophy)
582:
374:
293:
103:Guide to deletion
93:How to contribute
919:
874:Gnome (rhetoric)
808:
742:gnome (rhetoric)
734:gnome (rhetoric)
726:gnome (rhetoric)
715:
634:
578:
567:
560:
558:
495:
493:
459:
457:
369:
364:
359:
357:
355:
234:
233:
219:
163:
145:
122:Gnome (rhetoric)
83:
74:Gnome (rhetoric)
66:
34:
927:
926:
922:
921:
920:
918:
917:
916:
915:
909:deletion review
798:
705:
628:
569:
553:
551:
491:
489:
455:
453:
367:
362:
350:
348:
318:academic action
176:
136:
120:
117:
80:
77:
57:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
925:
923:
914:
913:
895:
894:
893:
892:
848:
847:
846:
845:
844:
843:
793:
792:
791:
790:
720:. The article
718:WP:Merge what?
708:Rhododendrites
703:
702:
701:
700:
699:
698:
697:
665:WP:NODEADLINES
604:
603:
602:
601:
566:
561:
547:
546:
520:
519:
504:
503:
502:
501:
500:
492:Rhododendrites
468:Rhododendrites
456:Rhododendrites
443:
442:
441:
377:
376:
358:
344:
343:
320:on this term,
294:
237:
236:
173:
116:
115:
110:
100:
95:
78:
76:
71:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
924:
912:
910:
906:
902:
897:
896:
891:
887:
883:
879:
875:
871:
870:
869:
865:
861:
857:
855:
854:Gnomic poetry
850:
849:
842:
838:
834:
830:
829:
828:
824:
820:
816:
812:
811:Gnomic poetry
806:
802:
797:
796:
795:
794:
789:
786:
783:
782:
778:
774:
773:gnomic poetry
770:
769:
768:
764:
760:
756:
755:Gnomic poetry
751:
747:
743:
739:
738:gnomic poetry
735:
731:
730:gnomic poetry
727:
723:
722:Gnomic poetry
719:
713:
709:
704:
696:
693:
690:
689:
685:
680:
679:
678:
674:
670:
666:
663:
662:WP:NOTCLEANUP
659:
655:
652:
651:
650:
646:
642:
638:
632:
627:
626:
625:
621:
617:
613:
609:
606:
605:
600:
596:
592:
588:
585:
584:
583:
581:
577:
575:
574:
564:
559:
556:
549:
548:
545:
542:
539:
538:
534:
530:
526:
525:gnomic poetry
522:
521:
518:
514:
510:
505:
499:
494:
486:
485:
484:
481:
478:
477:
473:
469:
465:
464:
463:
458:
451:
447:
444:
440:
436:
432:
428:
427:gnomic poetry
424:
420:
419:Gnomic poetry
416:
415:
414:
410:
406:
401:
397:
393:
389:
385:
383:
379:
378:
375:
373:
370:
365:
356:
353:
346:
345:
342:
339:
336:
335:
331:
327:
325:
319:
315:
311:
307:
303:
299:
295:
292:
288:
284:
280:
275:
274:
273:
269:
265:
261:
257:
253:
249:
245:
241:
232:
228:
225:
222:
218:
214:
210:
207:
204:
201:
198:
195:
192:
189:
186:
182:
179:
178:Find sources:
174:
171:
167:
161:
157:
153:
149:
144:
140:
135:
131:
127:
123:
119:
118:
114:
111:
108:
104:
101:
99:
96:
94:
91:
90:
89:
87:
82:
75:
72:
70:
69:
65:
63:
62:
55:
54:Gnomic poetry
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
900:
898:
852:Redirect to
851:
780:
749:
687:
607:
586:
572:
571:
562:
552:
550:
536:
528:
475:
445:
422:
381:
380:
349:
347:
333:
323:
321:
226:
220:
212:
205:
199:
193:
187:
177:
79:
60:
59:
49:
47:
31:
28:
748:. Possibly
384:per siroxo.
203:free images
801:Walt Yoder
637:WP:NOTDICT
509:Walt Yoder
252:WP:NOTDICT
905:talk page
860:Suriname0
856:as an ATD
833:Oaktree b
805:Oaktree b
750:something
591:Oaktree b
37:talk page
907:or in a
878:WP:CHEAP
555:Relisted
423:redirect
352:Relisted
302:aphorism
248:aphorism
166:View log
107:glossary
50:redirect
39:or in a
815:Visviva
612:WP:STUB
431:Visviva
405:Visviva
400:article
326:a stub.
306:proverb
244:proverb
209:WP refs
197:scholar
139:protect
134:history
84:New to
712:Siroxo
654:Siroxo
587:Delete
529:merged
368:plicit
181:Google
143:delete
656:said
446:Merge
429:. --
314:maxim
246:, or
240:maxim
224:JSTOR
185:books
160:views
152:watch
148:links
52: to
16:<
886:talk
882:Kvng
864:talk
837:talk
823:talk
803:and
777:siro
763:talk
710:and
684:siro
673:talk
669:Kvng
645:talk
631:Kvng
620:talk
616:Kvng
608:Keep
595:talk
533:siro
513:talk
472:siro
435:talk
409:talk
396:here
392:here
382:Keep
330:siro
324:keep
304:and
287:talk
268:talk
260:Kvng
217:FENS
191:news
156:logs
130:talk
126:edit
880:. ~
775:. —
667:. ~
496:\\
460:\\
448:to
425:to
231:TWL
164:– (
888:)
866:)
839:)
825:)
765:)
675:)
647:)
622:)
610:-
597:)
576:iz
515:)
437:)
411:)
300:,
289:)
281:.
270:)
242:,
211:)
168:|
158:|
154:|
150:|
146:|
141:|
137:|
132:|
128:|
64:iz
56:.
884:(
862:(
835:(
821:(
807::
799:@
785:o
781:χ
761:(
714::
706:@
692:o
688:χ
682:—
671:(
643:(
633::
629:@
618:(
593:(
573:L
541:o
537:χ
511:(
480:o
476:χ
466:@
433:(
407:(
363:✗
338:o
334:χ
285:(
266:(
235:)
227:·
221:·
213:·
206:·
200:·
194:·
188:·
183:(
175:(
172:)
162:)
124:(
109:)
105:(
61:L
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.