Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Supernumerary

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 delete and redirect to Supernumerary (disambiguation). The rough consensus here was that the article fails NOTDICTIONARY. I have redirected to the existing disambiguation page Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:28, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Supernumerary

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

Fails the general notability guideline as well as Wikipedia is not a dictionary – article is essentially a dictionary definition followed by numerous examples that lack a unifying context and are only related semantically. Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:31, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article is in need of a reorder and a rewrite. The lead is too long and doesn't go straight to the point, however I believe it is a notable enough concept, just the article is, as stated, written like a dictionary entry with examples. It's problematic and work needs to be done, but I say keep! Uamaol (talk) 18:56, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is determined by whether a topic has gotten significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. The sources used in the article make only trivial mention of the concept of supernumeraries, therefore the topic seems non-notable unless more significant coverage is found. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 13:17, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - True, but if you want to be picky, a huge number of the articles on this Wikipedia lack significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. There are BLP articles for people only because they have a title, who aren't mentioned anywhere on the internet and sometime not even in Burkes Peerage, but still remain despite not being notable. A huge number of geographic and taxonomic article also feature no references and are often incredibly difficult into hunting them down, yet exist. Sure they need work, but so does this article. What makes them any more notable than the article? Uamaol (talk) 18:24, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - That is not the issue here. The only issue is whether this article meets the criteria for deletion according to Wikipedia's Deletion policy. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:43, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - That clearly is the issue. To say this article does not meet the criteria for notability it to also say that the vast majority of this Encyclopædia is the same! Uamaol (talk) 11:43, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        Anyone is perfectly free to nominate other articles besides this one for deletion if they meet the necessary criteria. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        Ok, but wouldn't such an undertaking be hugely counter productive? Would it be possible to have your opinion on my suggestion? Uamaol (talk) 14:03, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Uamaol. One problem is a lack of discussion of its nature and its main characteristics, and goes straight to types and concrete examples. I started a new section with this in mind, but it is still bare bones. Marax (talk) 05:48, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- As far as I can see, the sources used[1][2] in that section make only trivial mention of the topic. More reliable sources would be needed to establish notability. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 13:17, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - I just added something from the enciclopedia juridica. Marax (talk) 12:28, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Solution I suggest we make this a disambiguation page and expand from there. Such pages offer definitions and redirect users to where they need to go. How does that sound? @Marax: Uamaol (talk) 11:45, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- That would make sense only if Supernumerary had several meanings that were themselves notable topics. Disambiguation pages are not for listing dictionary definitions or trivia about other subjects. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:52, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - As shown by the numerous different examples on the article, this would suit the creation of a disambiguation make with numerous articles created for the various types. Yes disambiguation pages are not dictionaries, but a faar few do provide simple difintions of words with a link on the right hand side to Wiktionary. Uamaol (talk) 08:23, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Dictionary definition plus random trivia. Sandstein 14:14, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:03, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Redirect to Supernumerary (disambiguation). The two pages pretty much have the same idea and format. A brief definition of the meaning of the expression, then links to notable instances of use.Thoughtmonkey (talk) 10:43, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Am I correct in thinking that Supernumerary actor is the most common meaning? It is the only one I knew about before reading the article.Thoughtmonkey (talk) 10:43, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BTW Extra is a disambiguation page and (in the opinion of the WP community) Backup is mainly about taking care of your data, with other uses like backup singers and police backup listed on Backup (disambiguation).Thoughtmonkey (talk) 03:44, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no logical reason a opera director doesn't say: "We need some more backups for the crowd scene," and a police officer: "I'm calling for supernumeraries." Thoughtmonkey (talk) 03:51, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:DICDEF, and otherwise consists of a random collection of trivia, which does nothing to show the topic is notable. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:59, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete The word basically means "member of temporary staff". We don't have article staff (organization) because the term is extremely generic and nonspecific. The disambig page must site here instead. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:38, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- article consists mostly of a dictionary definition, followed by a huge trivial example farm with very poor sourcing. I suggest that the content be deleted, and Supernumerary (disambiguation) be moved here in its place. Reyk _YO! 08:49, 26 November 2016 (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.