Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canon (basic principle)

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 keep. -- Aervanath (talk) 01:48, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Canon (basic principle)

[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)

A short article of about three paragraphs that lists several meanings of the English word canon and then gives examples of the two more prominent ones (a basic principle, and a body of works). There's nothing that ties the whole together, and the sourcing consists entirely of dictionaries or texts that use the word.

The article can be reverted to its pre-2019 state, where it was solely about canons as basic principles, but even that doesn't appear to be a distinct encyclopedic topic different from, say, Principle. I don't see relevant entries in Encyclopedia Britanica, the online Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, or in Borchert's 10-volume Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2nd ed, 2006). There are corresponding articles only in the Dutch, Frisian and Uzbek wikipedias (see canon (Q5033171)); the first two are about canons as bodies of works, not as basic principles.

I doubt there is potential for an article about the word as such, and I don't see anything in the disparate collection of its meanings that a broad-concept article could latch onto. – Uanfala (talk) 18:01, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 18:45, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No objection in principle if it is possible to transfer at least its lead to Canon (disambiguation) but I believe that this is not permissible? Also, it has 147 incoming links that would need new and sensible landing pages: your proposal really needs to have set out in at least broad-brush terms how this would be done. What we have is not ideal but it is not obvious that deleting the article will improve the position. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 00:33, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It has about a hundred incoming links from articles, and going through them will be a good idea regardless of the outcome of this discussion: I see a lot piped links for the term "canonical", and these can either be unlinked, or changed to point to the article for the relevant meaning in that context (e.g. Canonical language in this article, or Canon (fiction) in this one). I agree that the dab page could be expanded with an introductory sentence outlining the general meanings of the words, that's not against the MOS. – Uanfala (talk) 02:49, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It seems to me that the key question is whether an article can say something more useful than a list of terms on a DAB page. And I think it can: because, contrary to the nom, the different meanings of "canon" covered are related, as the text describes. The canon of the Western canon, the canon of Star Wars fans, and canon law do all stem from the underlying principle. If you merely have these in a DAB list, the reader doesn't know that they're linked. Bondegezou (talk) 22:54, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bondegezou: The thing is, all those meanings all come from the various senses the Greek word for "measuring stick" (kanon) took over the years (you can read a summary of it in the lede of Canon (canon law)). Therefore, the only article (non-DAB) which could be done on this underlying principle would be akin to a historical dictionary entry, and in this case I think WP:NOTDICT would apply. Veverve (talk) 02:35, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it comes close to WP:NOTDICT. However, I think an encyclopaedia page can go beyond the Wiktionary entry. Uanfala's suggestion for some introductory text on the DAB page is another possible solution. Bondegezou (talk) 10:59, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Helpful article covering a topic that is frequently used in the context of popular TV series, especially sci fi shows. It can be a useful article but needs some work.Deathlibrarian (talk) 04:26, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Deathlibrarian: The topic that is frequently used in the context of popular TV series, especially sci fi shows is Canon (fiction). Veverve (talk) 15:27, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:39, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with Veverve, this is better as an overview article of a single principle. Dimadick (talk) 16:21, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, makes sense to me to have this. Hyperbolick (talk) 08:01, 8 January 2022 (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.