Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Docere

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 merge‎ to Orator (Cicero). Daniel (talk) 22:21, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Docere

[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)

This article appears to fall outside of Wikipedia's scope, particularly the principle that Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The page exists entirely to document the usage of this one Latin word, a goal best covered by Wiktionary, not Wikipedia. According to Wikipedia's policy on the matter, such an entry requires information "beyond what would be found in a dictionary entry" and "information on the social or historical significance of the term." The article attempts to fulfill this requirement by citing quotes from Cicero about rhetoric, but these examples are largely unrelated to the actual word "docere" and are more relevant to the Ciceronian understanding of oration. Such information belongs more in a separate article about rhetoric or Cicero or oration than it does its own stand-alone article. Consider how Wikipedia has an article on Sexuality in ancient Rome but does not have a distinct article for the Latin verb "amare." Even the verb "delectare," despite being mentioned within the same context of Cicero describing the duties of rhetoric, does not have its own article, only a redirect. Graearms (talk) 23:38, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can find use of the term, but this isn't enough for an article. The article now seems to be how one person used the term in his time, rather than an extensive etymology of the word. Oaktree b (talk) 00:07, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:30, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary. GoldMiner24 ^Talk 01:19, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The term fits more into a dictionary than Wikipedia. Ibjaja055 (talk) 10:10, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Orator (Cicero), which already discusses (albeit briefly) the goals of rhetoric that Cicero identified, including the subject of this article. There is clearly more here than a dictionary definition, but it would be better treated together with its source and potentially the other related concepts. That appears to be the reason why delectare redirects to that article. The discussion here isn't unencyclopedic; it's just misplaced—not to mention undictionarian. P Aculeius (talk) 14:00, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested. This is barely more than a dictionary definition. It would be better discussed in context with the other information. Bearian (talk) 00:42, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: clearly preferable as an WP:ATD. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 08:05, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*DeleteI cannot find any source that can be suitable for this article, just promotional content and profiles fail WP:GNG. 181.197.42.215 (talk) 17:48, 14 October 2024 (UTC)striking comment by IP sock. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 22:20, 14 October 2024 (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.