Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gnome (rhetoric)

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 redirect‎ to Gnomic poetry. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:58, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gnome (rhetoric)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

"Gnome" is used by various authors as a synonym for either maxim, proverb, or aphorism. It is not a distinct concept, and consequently should not be the subject of an article, per WP:NOTDICT. 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 Gnome (disambiguation), a more likely landing point for anyone searching for a definition.)

This is a contested PROD; it was challenged by Kvng on the grounds that "WP:NOTDICT can be controversial". Sojourner in the earth (talk) 05:08, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 05:08, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As a direct solution to the issue raised in nomination, links to maxim (philosophy), aphorism and proverb could be added to gnome (disambiguation) page (indeed the way maxim itself disambiguates the similar concept). However there is a decent amount of academic action on this term, ~~so it might be better to keep a stub.~~ (new !vote below) —siro χ o 09:52, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:42, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per siroxo. This seems like a good use case for a broad-concept article, 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. here is a review of a book that I don't have access to that discusses the topic; here is said author's earlier MPhil thesis that also delves into the definition of "gnome" at considerable length; here is another article 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 disputation of terms. -- Visviva (talk) 18:26, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On review of the arguments and sources I'm convinced that the BCA of my dreams is at least equally viable at Gnomic poetry (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 redirect to gnomic poetry. -- Visviva (talk) 05:25, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Klaus Berger (theologian), 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. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:12, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Rhododendrites what do you think of my merge alternate proposal below? —siro χ o 06:32, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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 and defer to more knowledgeable editors to make bold changes from there. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:19, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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. Walt Yoder (talk) 00:09, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(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 gnomic poetry that the article be merged to that location (until an editor is able to split out more than a stub). —siro χ o 01:44, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: 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.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:31, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not appear to have caught on as a term. Vaguely DICDEF. Super !votes sound incredible! Oaktree b (talk) 15:27, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - WP:STUBS are not a problem. I'm confident we'll eventually determine the best organization for this material. There's no rush to delete. ~Kvng (talk) 13:30, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Kvng: 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 WP:NOTDICT (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. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 15:51, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Siroxo said (until an editor is able to split out more than a stub). 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. WP:NOTCLEANUP WP:NODEADLINES. ~Kvng (talk) 18:36, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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. —siro χ o 21:34, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Rhododendrites and Siroxo: 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 WP:Merge what?. The article Gnomic poetry already defines the word "gnome"; there is nothing in the opening sentence of gnome (rhetoric) that is missing from gnomic poetry, 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 gnome (rhetoric) that should be merged to gnomic poetry.
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 gnome (rhetoric) could be worked into Klaus Berger (theologian). Possibly something 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 appropriate, but I'm happy to !vote redirect rather than delete if there's a feeling that the content ought to be preserved. Gnomic poetry 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. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 16:29, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with a redirect to gnomic poetry. —siro χ o 20:10, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Walt Yoder and Oaktree b: Following on from the above, would either of you be willing to support a redirect to Gnomic poetry, 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 Visviva so they aren't left out of the developing discussion, but again, no obligation to comment.) Sojourner in the earth (talk) 05:10, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, the redirect. Oaktree b (talk) 14:07, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Gnomic poetry as an ATD - Although, I agree it's an unlikely search term. Suriname0 (talk) 21:14, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When someone types "gnome" into the search box, Gnome (rhetoric) should be one of the suggestions displayed based on that partial entry. That seems useful and reason enough to keep the redirect per WP:CHEAP. ~Kvng (talk) 15:09, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.