176:), this article is certainly full of sourced, encyclopedic information that has no business in a dictionary. The OHG inflection table is probably dispensable, but the five paragraphs of etymological information that precedes it are not, nor is the "Modern usage" section at the end. The section on the rune Mannaz could probably be a separate article (as it indeed originally was), but that would still leave plenty to make a decent encyclopedia article. +
499:
is an important topic because of its historical shift in connotation from informal to formal, and its lack of an obvious cognate in modern
English. Furthermore, there is really no "concept" behind the word which would be a suitable place for discussion about the word. "Man", however, is a noun, and
130:
Articles about words need extraordinary content to be considered encyclopedic. This article does not meet that threshold. It is a mishmash of etymologies and definitions, with no clear connecting thread that would combine them into an encyclopedic whole. It even contains a table of Old High German
244:, the sourced and NPOV discussion of its usage makes it a fitting candidate for an article, and if we have an article on a word, we really should discuss its etymology somewhat. By the way, the best dictionaries have extensive etymologies: if I remember right, the
131:
inflections, highlighting just how much of this content really belongs in a dictionary, not an encyclopedia. If there is any encyclopedic content here, it may be a small portion of the final section which is already well covered in other articles.
467:, but this goes beyond that essay. A featured article is thoroughly reviewed content, and its existence implies a consensus that fundamentally definitional, etymological or usage-based articles can have a place here.—
384:
I think this is a fascinating article, and I'd like to see it retained somewhere, but I must confess I think the argument that it belongs in a dictionary has considerable force. Reserving my !vote for the time
319:
if an article becomes too large or a section of an article has a length that is out of proportion to the rest of the article it is recommended that a split is carried out
146:
123:
201:
No, brief etymologies are the domain of dictionaries. Extensive etymologies, and discussion of usage, in paragraphs of connected prose, are encyclopedic information. +
368:
I think we can all agree that most of this content doesn't belong in Man; if a merge were to occur it would primarily consist of extracts from the last section.
491:
As I noted in my opening statement, some articles about words have extraordinary content and can be excellent articles. But that does not imply that
221:
constrained to solely brief etymologies. That is purely a function of printing costs, not scope. It's not even an issue for not-paper dictionaries.
409:
Yes, Wiktionary has a different format for their content. If any part of this was transwikied, it would have to be reformatted, but that's normal.
248:
spends something like half a page on its etymology for "black" alone. Etymologies aside, this content belongs nowhere except an encyclopedia.
262:
While I appreciate your support on the etymology issue, I believe usage guides are also dictionary content, not encyclopedia content.
17:
478:
396:
90:
85:
94:
527:
36:
382:
Does
Wiktionary actually take content of this kind? I don't recall seeing information presented in this format there.
77:
432:
It seems to be longstanding custom and practice, on
Knowledge (XXG), to allow this kind of content for some words:
245:
526:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
57:
350:
per arguments suggested by Angr. I also concur with
Rankiri that the page is too long to be a section of
508:
485:
413:
403:
372:
363:
338:
296:
266:
257:
230:
212:
196:
187:
163:
135:
59:
475:
393:
280:. I don't see any reason why there needs to be an entirely separate article for the word itself.
314:
334:
253:
226:
50:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
359:
464:
468:
386:
289:
81:
500:
while a limited discussion of the origin of the word itself is not inappropriate in the
456:. And indeed, it's possible for an article of this kind to be a featured article: see
207:
182:
158:
505:
410:
369:
263:
193:
132:
441:
330:
249:
222:
111:
355:
306:
283:
73:
65:
463:
It's possible to characterise the "this is custom and practice" argument as
202:
177:
153:
172:. Although not quite as high-caliber as other articles about words (e.g.
504:
article, an entire article with detailed etymology is overkill, IMO.
520:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
496:
457:
453:
173:
321:. Personally, I would rename the article into more appropriate
501:
449:
437:
351:
310:
277:
192:
Extensive etymology is the domain of dictionaries, isn't it?
445:
433:
309:(10KB) is disproportionately long to be a valid section of
217:
Wrong. As pointed out by
Nyttend below, dictionaries are
118:
107:
103:
99:
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
530:). No further edits should be made to this page.
147:list of Language-related deletion discussions
8:
141:
426:Thank you, Powers. I'm going to go with
145:: This debate has been included in the
495:word can or should have an article.
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
24:
1:
547:
509:12:29, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
486:01:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
414:00:14, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
373:00:14, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
60:16:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
523:Please do not modify it.
404:21:40, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
364:19:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
339:17:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
297:16:44, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
267:16:57, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
258:15:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
231:18:34, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
213:14:52, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
197:14:26, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
188:14:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
164:14:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
136:13:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
32:Please do not modify it.
44:The result was
295:
166:
150:
538:
525:
483:
473:
401:
391:
323:Etymology of man
294:
292:
281:
151:
121:
115:
97:
53:
34:
546:
545:
541:
540:
539:
537:
536:
535:
534:
528:deletion review
521:
482:
479:
469:
400:
397:
387:
327:Man (etymology)
290:
282:
117:
88:
72:
69:
51:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
544:
542:
533:
532:
517:
516:
515:
514:
513:
512:
511:
480:
419:
418:
417:
416:
398:
377:
376:
375:
344:
343:
342:
341:
300:
299:
271:
270:
269:
239:
238:
237:
236:
235:
234:
233:
167:
128:
127:
68:
63:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
543:
531:
529:
524:
518:
510:
507:
503:
498:
494:
490:
489:
488:
487:
484:
476:
474:
472:
466:
461:
459:
455:
451:
447:
443:
439:
435:
429:
425:
424:
423:
422:
421:
420:
415:
412:
408:
407:
406:
405:
402:
394:
392:
390:
381:
378:
374:
371:
367:
366:
365:
361:
357:
353:
349:
346:
345:
340:
336:
332:
328:
324:
320:
316:
313:(20KB). From
312:
308:
305:I think that
304:
303:
302:
301:
298:
293:
287:
286:
279:
278:Man#Etymology
275:
272:
268:
265:
261:
260:
259:
255:
251:
247:
243:
240:
232:
228:
224:
220:
216:
215:
214:
211:
210:
206:
205:
200:
199:
198:
195:
191:
190:
189:
186:
185:
181:
180:
175:
171:
168:
165:
162:
161:
157:
156:
148:
144:
140:
139:
138:
137:
134:
125:
120:
113:
109:
105:
101:
96:
92:
87:
83:
79:
75:
71:
70:
67:
64:
62:
61:
58:
55:
54:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
522:
519:
492:
470:
462:
431:
427:
388:
383:
379:
347:
326:
322:
318:
284:
273:
241:
218:
208:
203:
183:
178:
169:
159:
154:
142:
129:
52:Juliancolton
49:
45:
43:
31:
28:
471:S Marshall
389:S Marshall
307:Man (word)
74:Man (word)
66:Man (word)
380:Question
315:WP:SPLIT
124:View log
385:being.—
331:Rankiri
250:Nyttend
223:Uncle G
91:protect
86:history
506:Powers
465:WP:WAX
411:Powers
370:Powers
356:Cnilep
264:Powers
194:Powers
133:Powers
119:delete
95:delete
291:Talk
285:Tavix
274:Merge
122:) – (
112:views
104:watch
100:links
16:<
497:Thou
481:Cont
458:thou
454:they
428:keep
399:Cont
360:talk
348:Keep
335:talk
254:talk
242:Keep
227:talk
174:Thou
170:Keep
143:Note
108:logs
82:talk
78:edit
46:keep
502:Man
493:any
450:you
438:she
354:.
352:Man
325:or
311:Man
276:to
246:OED
219:not
48:. –
452:,
448:,
446:we
444:,
442:it
440:,
436:,
434:he
362:)
337:)
329:—
317::
288:|
256:)
229:)
209:gr
204:An
184:gr
179:An
160:gr
155:An
152:—+
149:.
110:|
106:|
102:|
98:|
93:|
89:|
84:|
80:|
56:|
477:/
460:.
430:.
395:/
358:(
333:(
252:(
225:(
126:)
116:(
114:)
76:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.