Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zeitgeist

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. Following improvements to the article by CW & TK. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:07, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zeitgeist

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

This is not an encyclopedia article. It has only one source, a dictionary, and that is exactly where this content belongs: a dictionary. There is nothing encyclopedic to say about this topic. Let us review: this article consists of a pronunciation, a translation (since it is a loanword) to English, a brief definition, and a sentence of etymology. That's it. All of those components are elements of a dictionary entry, not a comprehensive encyclopedia article. Powers ^T 14:08, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - got to agree, it is only a dictionary definition here so falls into WP:NOT. Sionk (talk) 21:23, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to wikt:zeitgeist and move Zeitgeist (disambiguation) to this location. Agreed it fails WP:DICDEF in current state. ~~No hope of expansion into a full article.~~ [struck following Bearian's comment] It could become a full article on the concept of Zeitgeist as used in psychology, but currently it doesn't even hint at that. —Quiddity (talk) 00:31, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:23, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per WP:BEFORE - of course this can be expanded. Whole books have been written on the topic. Bearian (talk) 22:04, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I wish we could enjoin editors from citing WP:BEFORE without actually citing an example of information that was missed. Heck, we could enjoin it completely, since you have no way of knowing whether or not I investigated for relevant sources beforehand. Suffice it to say that I remain unconvinced of the potential for an encyclopedic article that differs from all of our existing article on similar topics. Powers ^T 18:07, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's in fact a valid loanword and all I shall criticize aboout the article is that it has not exceeded stub's state. "Zeitgeist" is a notable subject. SirAppleby (talk) 16:49, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence for that, please? It's no fair to just assert it's notable without providing evidence. Powers ^T 18:23, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- As the proposer says, word (or loanword) definitions are suitable for dictionaries (or wiktionaries), not Wikipedia. Sionk (talk) 19:48, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this text could be combined with the disambig? IRWolfie- (talk) 01:48, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Keep We have nineteen articles on the Zeitgeist (disambiguation) page, and editors want to turn Zeitgeist into a red link? There is no case for deletion of either the title or the edit history, and any other issues are a matter for ordinary editing, not AfD discussion. Unscintillating (talk) 01:49, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I initially proposed a move of the disambiguation page to the base name, and was told to take it to AfD. Now I try it as an AfD and you tell me to handle it through normal editing (e.g., a move discussion). WHICH IS IT? Powers ^T 02:05, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A dictionary definition. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:44, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a powerful abstract concept. For example, An Introduction to the History of Psychology says "Together, these and other factors create a Zeitgeist, or a spirit of the times, which many historians consider vital to the understanding of any historical development.". Such abstract topics are difficult to write upon but our editing policy is to retain them for development over time. Warden (talk) 12:55, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Any chance you (or anyone) could put together a single paragraph covering that? I agree it has potential, but there isn't even a hint of that in the current article, which hasn't had a single edit since the afd tagging. :/ —Quiddity (talk) 20:07, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have made some edits which may help. It's interesting to find that Hegel never actually used the word, despite what many sources say. Warden (talk) 12:48, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A dictionary definition. --MeUser42 (talk) 15:32, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Anybody fluent in German who could just translate their more-in-depth version of the article? Apparently they still write articles over at de.wiki.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 23:04, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Or Spanish...they've got a pretty good article as well. I added a sentence on Hegel and started a "History" section p b p 23:56, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: My knowledge of the concept of "Zeitgeist" is Georg Hegel came up with the term, and then some other guys expanded on the term. The term was important enough for my college European history professor to devote a part of a lecture to it. You could have enough information on the history and changing usage of the term to have enough content to satisfy WP:NOT p b p 23:41, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. p b p 23:44, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:16, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article has now been expanded, it not just a simple definition. Dream Focus 09:49, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Generally recognized as an important concept. "If an issue does not have a snowball's chance in hell of being accepted by a certain process, there's no need to run it through the entire process, WP:SNOW. User:Fred Bauder Talk 12:03, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you have any evidence that it's an important concept, one that isn't sufficiently covered by other similar articles? Or just bald evidenceless assertions like every other "Keep" voter? Powers ^T 13:26, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't like the characterization of my framework for expanding this article as a "bald assertion". The article has over a dozen interwikis, many of which have four or more paragraphs of prose, so I'm all but certain that there can be reliable sources found to substantiate the topic. I'm not sure we can invoke SNOW yet, though p b p 13:31, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Have a look at how many article link to it. It's a very important concept. As it stands the page is a stub and hopefully someone will step up to develop more. I've added a bit and Warden has added a bit. But time is needed to fully read sources and put the material into context. If this isn't encyclopedic, I don't know what is. Truthkeeper (talk) 13:35, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is beyond the typical dictionary definition. As others have said, it's an important and well-known concept. This should be easy to expand (actually, I'd think more could be said about this concept than Pièce de résistance). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:56, 15 October 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.