Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tragedy (event)

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2008 October 5.
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 delete. Cirt (talk) 02:51, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tragedy (event)

Dicdef Neutrality^talk 02:55, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Dictionary definition, and it's incorrect anyway. Death isn't required for an event to be a tragedy. —Largo Plazo (talk) 03:28, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per WP:DEMOLISH. This page is only hours old and is under construction. Also, per WP:DPC, pages like this should not be proposed for deletion while under construction. The nom would be doing society a favor by withdrawing now and proposing for deletion again in a week if the page has not improved. Shaliya waya (talk) 06:08, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note that each of WP:DEMOLISH and WP:DPC is one person's essay, not an official policy or guideline. They're food for thought, but in this case there's no sign that the article was meant to be more than a dictionary definition. The hatnote shows that the author knows of the more general treatment of tragedy already written. In any event, there are five days (a) for the author to reassure us as to his/her intentions for the article and/or (b) to expand the article so that the discussion becomes moot. —Largo Plazo (talk) 08:55, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is moot already. The article has been modestly improved. Sure, it may be a stub, but I do not see how it can be called a dicdef anymore without calling thousands of other stubs dicdefs. Deleting this page could start a new trend, in which stubs are deleted on the basis they are dicdefs, and are no longer tolerated. Shaliya waya (talk) 11:34, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:ONLYESSAY before you discount these like that. Shaliya waya (talk) 18:45, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- I don't see how this can ever be more than a dicdef. Reyk _YO! 08:28, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. I don't see how that would end up more than a dicdef either, but I'll give the benefit of the doubt and give it a few days before I swing either way. Equendil Talk 10:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC) Ok, still doesn't look anywhere close to something encyclopedic, so Delete. Equendil Talk 18:03, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a dicdef, and not even an accurate one. Loss of life is not intrinsic to the concept of real-life tragedy. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: is it just me, or does this article consist only of a dictionary definition? Wiktionary is the place for that; Wikipedia is not. Cliff smith ^talk 17:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It is not proper Wikipedia etiquette to propose a page for deletion while it is under construction. My plans are for this to be a serious article, not just a dicdef. I started it out that way, but isn't that how everything starts? I know WP:DEMOLISH is just an essay (see WP:ONLYESSAY), but it is an important one. Articles need to be given more than just a few minutes to get up to par. I have already added a little more, with references, to this one. As I am adding more here (with book-based references), it is only a matter of time before the cases made by all the "deletes" here will crumble. Therefore, it would be in good faith for the nom to withdraw the nomination him/herself and give this a chance. Over the next few days, I will be busy at work, but once I get a major project completed there, I am planning to write more on human responses to tragedy, and so on. This is not something that is done in one day, let alone a few minutes. Shaliya waya (talk) 18:45, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I wouldn't say that's how everything starts. There isn't any reason to start an article from scratch in the public area before having drafted a decent stub somewhere else: Notepad, a word processor, a scratch page in your user namespace. There isn't any advantage to staking out an article before you're ready; by the same token, no harm is really done if an article is deleted by reason of not being ready, because it's effortless to recreate it when your content is ready. —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:19, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't just a dicdef anymore. I have added some references and a little more content already. I am planning on a new section in the coming days, though I will be very busy for the next few days and may not be able to get to the computer at all. But I have more coming, and I wanted to welcome others to work on the article, not to delete it. Shaliya waya (talk) 22:11, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is still just a definition, in my opinion. A definition with examples, but dictionaries do give examples. —Largo Plazo (talk) 22:16, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per WP:DICDEF. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 09:27, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Kind of sad, but this article is indeed nothing more than a dictionary definition with personal observations. From the article, one would learn that "A tragedy is an event resulting in the loss of one or more lives" (what about an event that turns someone into a paraplegic?); that "A death is generally viewed as tragic if the victim(s) have died of unnatural causes, mostly if the death is accidental, or if inflicted as a result of human wrongdoing." (does that cover terminal illness?); "Events that are often classified as tragedies include disasters (such as kidnappings, plane crashes, and murders)" (no comment); and "'Tragedy' is also used by some to refer to a disappointment." If we need an article to explain the essence of tragedy, this isn't it. Mandsford (talk) 13:08, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment User:Largo Plazo commented on the discussion page of this article that the topic may be covered under grief. Therefore, maybe merging might be a suitable alternative, if all the information here is contained under "grief." Regardless, when merging is the solution, deleting followed by redirecting is not. Shaliya waya (talk) 18:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notice to the closing admin. I know there are so many deletes, and no one else has felt this is anything beyond a dicdef. I know you will likely see the numerous deletes, and therefore automatically say the article should be deleted. BUT THINK AGAIN.

The lone case that all those supporting delete have made just about is dicdef. Already, this article has a few paragraphs and several good references. This is just the tip of the iceberg for what is to come.

Truth is, you cannot call that a dicdef. We have a term for what this is: a STUB. Deleting this is justification for deleting many other stubs. And this stub is better and has more references than so many others.

Also, it would be extremely unfair not to give this page a chance, given the time and thoughts it takes to make a good article. So many good articles started out with just one line, which is what it had when the afd was started. Now it has a few paragraphs. The only thing it doesn't have are comments on this discussion since then, recognizing that.

If you do delete this page, I will promptly take action to have it restored, so therefore, it would be in everyone's best interest not to. Shaliya waya (talk) 04:31, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Threatening the closing admin that you will re-create the page if it is deleted could be seen as disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. You don't own that page. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:19, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a threat. What I am describing is completely within my rights. Wikipedia has a process called Deletion Review, where this can be taken if need be. Most requests like this are honored there, so what I am saying is deleting this page will only delay its improvements. Shaliya waya (talk) 11:34, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not remotely convinced that this page has any potential to be encyclopedic. I can't imagine what sources could be produced to save this from being a (biased) dictionary definition. Nothing that's appeared there so far gives any indication that there's a coherent, verifiable topic to write about. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The remark "... it would be in everyone's best interest not to" implies that there will be consequences adverse to everyone's interests. It does sound like a possible threat. —Largo Plazo (talk) 14:34, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As far as improvements go, I would observe that the nature of tragedy has been written about by authors with far more talent than anybody, myself included, in this discussion, and perhaps that this can be userfied while the author plumbs a lot deeper than a surface description. Benjamin Franklin observed that "Life's tragedy is that we get old too soon, and wise too late." But I would caution that, although deferring to persons more skilled than ourselves is the start of a better article, stringing together a lot of great quotes won't necessarily work. Original synthesis is not much better than original research. Good luck on the request for deletion review. Mandsford (talk) 17:16, 3 October 2008 (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.