Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lady

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2010 June 2.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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 Kept. Snow keep, overwhelming opinion in favor of keeping. The article is not just about the word but also the title and cultural background - any incomplete coverage should be dealt with by expansion, not deletion. Dcoetzee 03:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lady

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

This is a good example of why WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary is a good policy. As a modern American the word "lady" means something like "an upper-class (or at least respectable) woman." However the article is not about upper-class or respectable women. It is about the word "lady", in violation of the basic principle of "not a dictionary." The fact that the same word can mean many things to many people is another point to consider, and a part of the cause of the weakness of the article, although I'm sure the editors did their best. Kitfoxxe (talk) 01:49, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Recuse Please don't WP:CANVASS. [1],2 --Cybercobra (talk) 02:15, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep You would not find all this in a dictionary. Why don't you nominate Lord as well? Blatant sexism. The article is about the concept (or really, several different concepts), not the word, and certainly belongs in an encyclopedia. Johnbod (talk) 02:20, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- An encyclopedia article should be about only one concept at a time, not several. Powers ^T 02:47, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sexism? LOL, if he had tried to delete lord you could have said the same thing! Please point out the policy that relates to sexism.- Wolfkeeper 01:40, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up. If the article leans too much towards dictionariness, that can be amended through editing. Nominator hasn't explained why this is an irredeemably unencyclopedic topic, only that the article perhaps focuses too much on dictionary-like stuff. rʨanaɢ (talk) 02:28, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is already an article woman which is about ladies and other women. And yes I notified editors that might be interested, including every editor of the article who made more than one edit in 2010 (except the ones without a user name only a number, whatever that's called) and the editors on the talk page of WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary because they will also be interested. (This was suggested by the WP:AFD page.) Kitfoxxe (talk) 02:34, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The page advises that biased canvassing is strongly discouraged. I don't think it's unreasonable to believe that editors active on the WP:NOTDICT talk page would be more likely to favor your point of view in this discussion. decltype (talk) 02:52, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - From the list he notified he appears to have done this correctly, sending to the contributors to that page isn't biased. If anything it's biased against, it's usually full of people trying to change the policy to allow them to include their favourite words.- Wolfkeeper 03:13, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - You can post on a relevant Wikiproject or contact those who have participated in the article being nominated(there is a bot that does that automatically now). It is canvassing to contact people from a policy page, as this was done. People who don't want this type of article to exist, were contacted to tell them where one was at so they could go and post their predictable delete votes. Dream Focus 13:11, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - I think you would have a case if the votes from his call resulted in all deletes, but as it is, in practice, I think you're just failing to assume good faith.- Wolfkeeper 20:05, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I second Rjanag's point that the article could possibly benefit from a copyedit; as my involvement with this article has been tangential it would be presumptuous of me to point out specific problems. However, the article goes into much more depth than a mere definition and should be kept in some form. Tiderolls 02:39, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article appears to be about the usage of the word "lady" in different times and cultures and not a strict definition of the word itself. The referencing is weak with one entry, but it is the encyclopedia britannica, public domain, so it is solid. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 02:42, 30 May 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares[reply]
- Usage is also the within domain of a dictionary, just like definitions. Powers ^T 02:46, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Almost completely only usage in dictionaries, even their definitions are defining how the term is used, whereas encyclopedia definitions are precising definitions to point out the class of things they're covering.- Wolfkeeper 03:13, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Definite keep. Kit, you say there is "already an article woman which is about ladies and other women". This article isn't about ladies and other women. That's why it exists. If we deleted it and had to rely on Wiktionary for lady we would be denying much valuable information from readers. Moriori (talk) 02:45, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The current article is indeed atrociously dictionarish, but the subject is notable as the female counterpart of both Lord and Gentleman. (Actually we should probably have Lady (nobility) and Lady (society) or something, since an article should cover only one topic, and this covers several.) Powers ^T 02:46, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bad idea, unless it gets far larger. The idea is the same, but it has spread wider across society as time goes on. Johnbod (talk) 02:54, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're allowed to group things together in encyclopedias; in fact it's a really good idea because it helps you compare and contrast. It's when you don't do that that an encyclopedia tends to become more or less just a very verbose dictionary with an article per definition.- Wolfkeeper 03:13, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What you should never do is group them by the words, always by their actual real-world nature; so this article shouldn't include lady bugs or something ghastly- i.e. just because of the word lady in the name.- Wolfkeeper 03:16, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've edited this in the past. The article is and is not "about the word 'lady'"; it's about a particularly complicated set of social class and gender role issues, that have been poured into the word "lady" because that's the way language-equipped humans organize our ideas. You could read the article as an extended usage guide; but in its current form it contains information too complex for Wiktionary. ("Wikipedia is not a dictionary", among all our policies, has always struck me as particularly philosophically naive. Every article about a subject humans have named and categorized, from honour to aliphatic, is "about a word". Words do not exist in nature; they are all linguistic tokens. Every Wikipedia article is about a word; wikifying external referents is beyond the software's current capabilities.) - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 02:50, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, no, no!!. So you're to blame then? Look, the article rocket isn't about the word rocket it's about things with flamey stuff coming out, and there's different words for it in different languages. The article rocket is about the things with flamey stuff, not the English word 'rocket', or its equivalent in other languages. Got it?- Wolfkeeper 02:57, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Um. I've put rocket in my salad without it catching fire, or blasting off into the empyrean. Maybe I'm not using enough. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 03:02, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but you seem so very confused. The rocket article does not cover salad. Encyclopedias group things together into articles based on what they are, not the words used to refer to them.- Wolfkeeper 03:19, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can certainly understand the concern that the proposer has with the article. The article is littered with the term 'lady' in quotation marks to emphasise that it's talking about the term, rather than the idea of a lady. However, the article claims in the intro to be about the general idea, rather than the term, and while the body is rather badly written so as to mention the term almost throughout, this seems to be mostly cosmetic, and it can IMO be reasonably easily corrected to use the word lady to indicate the topic, rather than use it to talk about the usage and history of the term 'l' + 'a' + 'd' + 'y'. Therefore:
Keep per my above comment, but it needs a thorough going over to edit away the constant references to the term itself.- Wolfkeeper 02:57, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE Having looked at it more carefully, there's an absolute and complete lack of encyclopedic content. Not a single sentence. The article consists entirely of etymology.- Wolfkeeper 06:17, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- An absolute and complete lack of encyclopedic content, despite it coming from the Encyclopedia Britannica? Dream Focus 13:04, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, surprisingly. Print encyclopedias don't always get it right either, although they're much more consistent.- Wolfkeeper 20:05, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - So you are right, but the encyclopedia company is wrong? Dream Focus 01:03, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - So you really think that an encyclopedia company is infallible?- Wolfkeeper 01:40, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Since a major long established encyclopedia like the Encyclopedia Britannica has professional fact checkers and an editorial staff, they are as infallible as it gets. Since Wikipedia says if its covered in a notable printed encyclopedia, its notable enough to have an article here, I'd say the presented rationale from those who wish to delete it are quite fallible. When the Wikipedia was young, they took articles from the out of copyright version of this encyclopedia, to fill thousands of articles with. Dream Focus 02:07, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        LOL. The actual studies that are linked from Wikipedia found that the rate of serious errors in EB and the Wikipedia were non zero and not too dissimilar.- Wolfkeeper 02:14, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Topic appears to be sufficiently encyclopedic. Now, it should probably be sourced better, since the only source used is the 1911 EB, but I don't see flaws that warrant deletion. —C.Fred (talk) 03:35, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article does a lot more than offer a mere definition of the word. I agree that more encyclopedic content could be added, but deletion is not a reasonable response. Netalarmpoke 04:19, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, no it doesn't. I don't think I can find an entire sentence that isn't simply about explaining how a term is used. There's no encyclopedic content here at all.- Wolfkeeper 06:17, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Meh. I meant that it offers a lot more than a basic dictionary definition of the word. It goes into depth about the usage, history, etc of the word. I understand that such content is still "dictionary-ic?", but it offers much more information than other dictionaries. Still, providing more encyclopedia content would be an easy fix for this article, so there's no need to delete it. Netalarmpoke 01:14, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Purely a dictionary definition wiht no possibility of expansion. Appears to fail WP:NOTDICT, and while Wikipedia aims to be more than a regular encyclopedia, I find it telling that other encyclopedias do not have an entry for "lady" itself, but it is covered heavily in dictionaries; transwiki to Wikitionary -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:00, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The disambig page for "lady" shares where to find some of the many different uses for the word. Following, we have here a nicely encyclopdic explanation of the term "Lady" with Etymology and usage, British usage, and social usage. With respects to the nominator, and agreeing that yes... while Wikipredia is not a dictionary, a dictionary usage would look like THIS or THIS. What we instead have here is much more than such a simple dictionary definition, and is presented in a manner so as to improve the project and our readers' understanding of the term in context to its use toward Nobility, its history, its entymology, and its usage. It should be remembered, that "In some cases, a word or phrase itself may be an encyclopedic subject"... and that such articles should provide other types of information about that topic as well." In this case, those caveats are met. What it needs is additonal sources, yes... but not deletion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:23, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep This seems to be a frivolous drive-by contrary to our deletion policy. Insofar as the article is based upon content from the Encyclopaedia Britannica, the nomination seems absurd. And redlinking a commonplace word like this would not be a sensible outcome. And poking lots of editors such as myself to come and discuss the matter here seems to be disruption in the manner of J. Wellington Wimpy, "Let's you and him fight". Colonel Warden (talk) 07:59, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Quite apart from its (admittedly etymological) rich historical evolution, this brief word hides an abundance of extraordinarily subtle social connotations which definitely deserve a WP article. Let us not fall into the trap of deleting worthwhile subjects that may not fit exactly into WP policy, which I am sure was not devised as a black or white yardstick (to mix my metaphors). Even if there is one aspect in the article that would not be appropriate in a dictionary entry on the word, it is worth keeping. Nick Michael (talk) 08:17, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: The article contains etymological and historical information which is not suitable for the Wiktionary project. This is clearly within the scope of THIS project, and not a dicdef issue. - BalthCat (talk) 08:58, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This seems to go beyond what a dictionary might tell you, however might I suggest a merge with woman? WackyWace ^talk 10:23, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It seem ridiculous to delete this article. I have to completely disagree with those who think that this article is essentially a dictionary entry. The term Lady has enormous social and cultural significance that can never be captured in a dictionary entry. As already stated, all of the other honorifics and styles should also be deleted if this entry is to be deleted. --L.Smithfield (talk) 13:26, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Another comment I actually think that WP could (or even should) have an article on upper-class women, or women who conform to social expectations of respectability. I'm not sure it should be called "Lady" however. Kitfoxxe (talk) 13:36, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's fine, but AfD is not the way to do moving and renaming. Essentially what you're saying is the article needs to be cleaned up and redefined, not deleted. rʨanaɢ (talk) 13:56, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. This article is not about ladies, but about the word "lady." That was why I nominated it for deletion, because WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary explictly says just that: "Each article in an encyclopedia is about a person, or a people, a concept, a place, an event, a thing etc.; whereas a dictionary article is primarily about a word, an idiom or a term and its meanings, usage and history." Kitfoxxe (talk) 14:17, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"In some cases, a word or phrase itself may be an encyclopedic subject". Such articles should provide other types of information about that topic as well." Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 16:20, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But the article does not give any information about ladies. In fact a large part of it is about the word "lady" being used to refer to women who are not ladies in the traditional sense of the word. Kitfoxxe (talk) 18:30, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article is not about "ladies"... it is about usage of the honorific term Lady, and naturally the article about the honorific deals with how the term Lady is used and is set apart from lessor usages. Perhaps a move to Lady (honorific) might satisfy you? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:45, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An honorific is still just a word or term.- Wolfkeeper 20:05, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In exanding a reader's understanding of a topic, Wikipedia includes articles on such "honorifics" as Emperor, King, Lord, President, Governor, Mayor, Majesty, Highness, as well as articles on non-honorific "words" such as rapist, pedophile, terrorist, priest, nun, etc. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:52, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you really, seriously claiming that the articles at emperor, king, lord, president, governor etc. should simply cover them as honorific words??? Because they don't right now. If yes, are we supposed to take any of the rest of your comments seriously? If not, are we supposed to take your flippant comments seriously?- Wolfkeeper 01:40, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and clean up- there is simply too much to this to be covered by a simple dictionary entry. Umbralcorax (talk) 15:13, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Wiktionary is not limited by print space considerations." -WP article on Wiktionary Kitfoxxe (talk) 15:23, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not Wiktionary. Despite its not being "limited" by space considereations (just as Wikipedia is not limited by space consierations), the Wictionary page for that term handles it in the same limited fashion as do dictionaries such as Merriam-Webster. It is here at Wikipedia where readers are given much more depth and backgrond in increasing their understanding or the topic. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 16:20, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any reason that Wiktionary can't give the same information about the word "lady"? Kitfoxxe (talk) 18:28, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome to go and expand on the limited definition they have over there, and see how fast someone there reverts you for creating an article when all they want is a minimal "definition". It is here at Wikipedia where we strive to add to a reader's overall understanding of a topic. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:45, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Our scope is not defined by what Wiktionary will or will not accept. Powers ^T 11:39, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They don't only have definitions in Wiktionary either; they include etymology and usage, and quite a few other things.- Wolfkeeper 20:05, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please direct us to the Lady entry in Wiktionary which "include(s) etymology and usage, and quite a few other things." Moriori (talk) 06:14, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

wiktionary:lady.- Wolfkeeper 01:40, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Excellent example of a meaningful construct that is apt to be linked in many, many WP articles. Carrite (talk) 15:37, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I agree with Powers; an encyclopedia article should be about only one topic, and the name most commonly used for that topic should be it's title, when possible. An encyclopedia article should never be about all the meanings associated with a given word or term that happens to be the title of the article, unless it's a dab page. With that in mind, I cannot discern the topic of the article at Lady. It truly does seem to be about the word primarily, and many of the meanings ascribed to that word. However, that's an argument to fix the article, not delete it. That does not exclude the possibility that the article cannot be fixed because there is no one topic associated with Lady worthy of coverage in an encyclopedia. If that's true, then it should be deleted after all. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:29, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The whole point of AFDs is to take stock of an article. If the article cannot be other than purely about a term, then it needs to be deleted or merged. I don't see any evidence at all that this article can be more than an extended attempt at covering the different definitions of the word 'lady'. That to me says it needs to merge with another article or several. For example merging most of it with Lord would seem to be a reasonable option, or creating a glossary of titles, and making it into a disamb page would be better than what we have.- Wolfkeeper 03:05, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only point of AFD is to empower an admin to use the delete function, which is tightly restricted because of its seriously destructive nature. Other discussion of the article's content and scope should take place on its talk page which is provided for this purpose. RfCs may be used as needed to form an adequate quorum. Using AFD as a general discussion forum is like using capital punishment as a form of career counselling. "So, you're not sure whether you should go into teaching or social work, eh? Well, let's see if the mob would rather hang you instead...". Colonel Warden (talk) 08:30, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. Good one. However I am perfectly sincere in saying this article should be deleted. And yes this is also intended as a test case for WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. I hope there is not a policy against that. Kitfoxxe (talk) 14:00, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This AFD seems rather ridiculous to me. Just because something is in a dictionary, doesn't mean it can't be in an encyclopedia as well. The article clearly states: This article incorporates text from the Encyclopædia Britannica, Eleventh Edition, a publication now in the public domain. An Encyclopedia company that has been around since 1768, has determined it notable enough to be in their encyclopedia. Dream Focus 13:04, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well then how about renaming the article to "How the word 'lady' was used in the United Kingdom in 1911 according to the Encyclopeadia Britannica", since that is the only source cited? Kitfoxxe (talk) 19:12, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep, either a pointy nomination or a failure to understand the point of an encyclopaedia. Verbal chat 14:23, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep is only used when there are no counterweighing arguments. That's actually a bad-faith call.- Wolfkeeper 01:40, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nominator is 100% correct in his/her understanding of "Wikipedia is not a dictionary." However, in some cases this is trumped by WP:Ignore all rules. Some words are important enough, and have an interesting enough history, to have their own WP articles -- despite "not a dictionary." This came up in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moonies. Certainly ladies are more important than Moonies. (I am one so it's okay for me to use that word. :-) I plan to boldly jump into the the Lady article and correct some of the misunderstandings and Britishisms. Cheers. Steve Dufour (talk) 14:30, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't "correct" Britishisms, that would be highly POV! Just make sure the scope & context of points is clearly defined, and reference whatever you add. I'll be watching. Everybody agrees the article needs improving. Johnbod (talk) 14:41, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help with the first sentence. Steve Dufour (talk) 14:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was partly joking there. However I do think the article needs a more world-wide view. BTW (I am in my 50s and born and raised in California) I use the word "lady" as my first choice in talking about any woman.Steve Dufour (talk) 14:47, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moonies was badly completed; the administrator failed to give a rationale. Merely having a majority of keep votes isn't sufficient, and the fact that he just gave a result indicates he just did a head count; but AFDs when done correctly are not votes. They can't be votes due to vote stuffing being too easy here.- Wolfkeeper 17:08, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to renominate it. Don't invite me though because I can not promise which way I would vote. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 17:19, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Wiktionary and stub here with template:wi. Failing that, delete because Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This is an exceptionally well written prose dictionary definition with an extended etymology and usage section. There is no encyclopedic content here, however. Given the length of time that it has been in this condition, I see little chance that encyclopedic content will be found at this title but it can always be rewritten then if something is found. Rossami (talk) 05:49, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep - Fundamental misunderstanding of WP:DICTIONARY by nominator. That policy is to prevent articles that consist of little more than a dictionary definition, not to prevent lengthy articles about the history and cultural context of a honorific title. There are no problems with this article that can't be solved through normal editing. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is my understanding of WP:DICTIONARY: "Each article in an encyclopedia is about a person, or a people, a concept, a place, an event, a thing etc.; whereas a dictionary article is primarily about a word, an idiom or a term and its meanings, usage and history." Please tell me why that is wrong. Kitfoxxe (talk) 12:36, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the editor seems to be trying to make a WP:POINT. While I understand that articles on words should not normally exist, there are very obvious exceptions. Claritas § 07:41, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- per WP:SNOW. Horribly misguided nomination. Reyk _YO! 09:24, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per MichaelQSchmidt's replies to the delete !votes above. Really, when you think about it, we have dozens of articles like. Most anything that's a verb or adjective could be called a "dictionary definition" in the way that this is. —Soap— 01:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from a handful of swear words we don't have adjectives and verbs either. Seriously, try finding one. See WP:VERB and WP:ADJECTIVE.- Wolfkeeper 01:40, 2 June 2010 (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.