Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Subjunctive by attraction
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. The article is sorely in need of cleanup and would be helped by stubification, but it's clear that the subject belongs in Wikipedia. — The Earwig (talk) 00:46, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
| Advanced search for: "Subjunctive by attraction" | ||
|---|---|---|
| ||
| ||
| ||
| ||
|
| Advanced search for: "attraction of mood" | ||
|---|---|---|
| ||
| ||
| ||
| ||
|
- Subjunctive by attraction (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)
This article is written like a research paper and is decidedly unencyclopedic. Most of the article consists of (unsourced - possibly OR) lists of instances of "subjunctive by attraction" in Latin literature. The rest of the article (other than the lead, the only decent part of the article) doesn't really say much by itself, relying on lengthy quotes and other assertions by the sources.
Moreover, I don't think Wikipedia needs an article on this topic at all. However if it does, this is definitely not it. — This, that, and the other (talk) 11:58, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- So fix it! Get your editing tool out and write. When you figure out from the very poor and incomplete citations that the "one authority" and "another authority" being cited here are Charles Edwin Bennett, William Gardner Hale, and Tenney Frank, things will be a lot clearer. As will reading one of the tens of books about Latin spanning almost two centuries (earliest that Google Books turned up for me in a two-minute search was dated 1838) that cover this subject (sometimes by its alternative name of attraction of mood). Or as indeed will trading the four very dense pages on the subject in Handford 1947, §160–§162.
- Handford, Stanley Alexander (1947). "Subjunctive resulting from attraction". The Latin Subjunctive. Taylor & Francis.
- Uncle G (talk) 17:53, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Surely any relevant content could be merged into the subjunctive mood article? Or, even better, merged into a Romance-specific article split out from the subjunctive mood article (which is now too long)? — This, that, and the other (talk) 03:44, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, perhaps this is an OTHERSTUFF argument, but I notice that we lack articles on other uses of the subjunctive in Latin. See this page, which contains a table of different uses of the subjunctive. We don't seem to have articles on many of these, and rightly so, for they are not individually worthy of articles. — This, that, and the other (talk) 07:09, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- hello, I'm the author of the article. I agree with the critiques except I don't think deletion is the remedy. While I no longer edit wikipedia, I would propose deleting everything except the lede, and preserving all the citations. Sorry this is sloppy, I'm using my phone to edit. User agradman. 166.250.44.119 (talk) 23:00, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep assuming that someone will edit this down to a reasonable size. There's a germ of an article here. Bearian (talk) 20:24, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, but stub more or less per agradman - lede and Further Reading section, with any other identifiable references that would otherwise be deleted added to the Further Reading section. Though I wouldn't object to seeing parts of the rest of the article summarised into two or three cited paragraphs, if anyone wants to try this. Ultimately, this would probably work better as a section of a few paragraphs in an article on the Subjunctive in Latin - but this currently doesn't exist, so keeping a short article is more feasible. Finally though, I'd note that large chunks of the current article have probably been copied from elsewhere. However, it seems overwhelmingly likely that the source is the cited book by Charles Edwin Bennett, who died in 1921 - so copyvio won't apply. PWilkinson (talk) 21:41, 17 June 2012 (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.