Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Potentate

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. I internally debated keeping as a DAB page per discussion, but that would require a complete re-write, and frankly anyone can do that just as easily after a delete, maybe even easier. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:12, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Potentate

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

A dictionary definition (WP:DICDEF), and a pretty dubious one too, tagged as unsourced (WP:V) since 2007. If we strip out all the unsourced and/or dicdef content, there's nothing left, and no obvious redirect target comes to mind. (No, Ruler isn't it.) Sandstein 23:40, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:49, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete, as the article is mostly just definition and I don't see how it could be made encyclopedic. Potential redirect targets might be Absolute monarchy or Dictator, but the match is imprecise. Cnilep (talk) 01:55, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak convert to a dab page. In addition to the head of the Shriners, there's also the three-time winner of the Welsh Champion Hurdle and an alternate name for a Power in Christian angelology#Choirs in medieval theology. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:27, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's ... possible, I guess? But these are all very obscure and/or minor topics, and none of them has an article. I'm not sure whether that warrants a dab page. But I'm ok with one being created after deletion. Sandstein 21:57, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak disambiguate per Clarityfiend, but has anyone actually checked online sources to ensure that this is not an encyclopedic and notable subject? No one here seems to have done WP:BEFORE. I certainly haven't. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 04:24, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 04:27, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

potential article. Draftify. DGG ( talk ) 04:31, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE prr WP:NOTDICTIONARY. This is a common English noun, OED: "A monarch, prince, ruler, esp. an autocratic one. Also: a powerful or influential person; a magnate." However unlike such terms as monarch, tyrant , dictator, autocracy, theocracy , etc., no body of political science literature explores or employs this as a term of art. A "potentate" is simply one of the many English words for "ruler" or "powerful man." The usage by the Shriners can be mentioned on the Shriner's page. I really don't see the need for a dab page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:32, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

about that dab for the Shriners annd the racehorse (I had missed the racehorse). User:Clarityfiend can you explain the angel thing? I'm not seeing it. But the racehorse doesn't look all that significant and discussing the Shriner's potentate on the Shriner's page looks sufficient to me.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:40, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

St. Ambrose (2nd on the list) uses the term. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:25, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dabify per Clarityfiend. Since we do have encyclopedic topics called "potentate", we should have a DAB page. Obviously, a wiktionary link would be included if people just want a dicdef. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 18:10, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The racehorse appears on the list of single racetrack; the angel reference is arcane and obscure, but I suppose a Dab is harmless, because Shriner's title.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:17, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it's not necessary to keep this page's history, given its WP:DICDEF issue, and the creation of a DAB page can happen outside of AfD. Deletion solves the current issue, clarifies that a DICDEF version of the page is not appropriate, and clears the path for future development as something else. Bakazaka (talk) 02:52, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 03:31, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT, specifically Wiki is not a dictionary FOARP (talk) 08:40, 9 January 2019 (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.