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. While the opinions are divided, the delete opinions have the stronger arguments, with some of the keeps clearly incorrect. E.g. "it's a well-established basic principle that we cover what conventional encyclopedias do": has any other encyclopedia an article on "Abbreviations listed in the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica"? Apart from that, why has no one trouted Richard Arthur Norton and reversed his move-to-another-namespace-during-AfD? Fram (talk) 14:34, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Abbreviations listed in the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

This isn't encyclopedic content; by definition it is dictionary material, and no improvement is possible. The previous AfD was a very weak close and if it weren't ten months ago I'd have gone to DRV instead. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 12:57, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Pretty much an indiscriminate list that doesn't qualify as encyclopedic. Why not do it for every year since 1AD? List of curse words in the dictionary for every year since 1AD? Why not for every dictionary ever made? List of words that start with the letter Q? Again, indiscriminate list. Dennis Brown (talk) 14:32, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Dennis Brown hits the nail on the head. There is no reason that this particular edition of that particular encyclopedia is worthy of coverage. Effectively a random list, which should be regarded as a no-no. Carrite (talk) 15:44, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. As long as the content is encyclopedic, then even if the issue of its proper titling and arrangement is difficult, deletion is not proper. This list's content derives directly from the article "Abbreviation" in the EB1911. (For some reason, EB1911 did not include in its "article space" a list of words that start with Q: straw man & false equivalency.) That model encyclopedia thought it was encyclopedic content, and it is still encyclopedic content today under our policies. I am very sympathetic to the complaints about the awkwardness of this topic's definition. However, I believe the simple fact is that we should have a more broadly defined and sourced treatment of the subject, but instead it happens that (A) no one can be bothered to create such a fuller treatment of the subject, so that (B) we instead have this fragment. It's somewhat like Lysias: it would be nice to have a new article based 100% on current scholarship; on the other hand, the current Wikipedia article, based largely on Richard Claverhouse Jebb's article for EB1911, is better than nothing. The difference is that, to caution our readers that we only have properly vetted and sourced encyclopedic content based on EB1911 rather than more broadly, we have to title this one awkwardly (whereas we don't need to give the title-restriction Lysias as he appeared to the best scholarship of 1911). As a side issue, every encyclopedia should give an accounting of its own abbreviations, and we make plenty of use of these abbreviations (e.g. but not only in retained and good EB1911 content on older subjects & biographies), so that deletion will "break" our encyclopedia's functionality in an important way. I just can't believe that EB1911 owed treatment of the range of common English abbreviations to its readers and that we don't; we need more and wider abbreviation lists, not one fewer that isn't replaced by superseding content. To sum up: have a look at everything listed at Abbreviation#See_also. Until we have a more general treatment that subsumes the 1911 list, the 1911 "fragment" of that ideal article is all that exists, but at least it's a start towards the proper goal. Wareh (talk) 18:43, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep it's a well-established basic principle that we cover what conventional encyclopedias do (and a good deal mmore). The presence of the topic in EB is sufficient . The title is necessary for exactly the reasons Wareh says. DGG ( talk ) 19:24, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both of these are bogus. There is literally nothing that can be done to transform this into an encyclopedic article as its subject is nothing more than an entry out of an old book. That the book in question happens to be an out-of-copyright edition of EB is neither here nor there, as (contrary to DGG's specious evocation of a "well-established principle", of which there is none) we are not beholden to treat enything ever covered in any other encyclopedia as worth coverage here. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 19:40, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We do not have to to it, but it is sufficient justification. DGG ( talk ) 21:44, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:09, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I boldly moved it into Wikipedia space. I see a need for it when doing research but not of use for the general reader. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:51, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong and solid delete per my previous nomination:

This list contains totally arbitrary criteria for inclusion (what's so important about 1911 or the Encyclopaedia Britannica 11th edition as a place to find abbreviations?) and appears to be composed of nothing but original research. I can't imagine any third-party sources having ever commenting upon such a grouping of information so the subject matter also fails our notability guidelines. Interesting? Yes, so perhaps a transwiki is in order, but this material is definitely not fit for an encyclopedia article. The relevant policies and guidelines include WP:OR, WP:STAND, WP:V, WP:N, WP:IINFO, and WP:NOT#DIR. ThemFromSpace 00:59, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can accept difference of opinion, but this is missing some basic facts. The list is not "composed of nothing but original research"; it generally reproduces a list published in the "article space" of the EB1911. If that material is OR, so is everything else in Wikipedia based on EB1911 articles. I believe the point you're driving at is that the titling of the encyclopedic material from EB1911 is OR. (I disagree, but I can see that concern, to which the solution is retitling List of common English abbreviations. For such an article, those listed in the EB1911 article "abbreviation" would be, of course, impeccably sourced. The question is whether anyone would bother to source additions to the list with equal care. Perhaps the solution here could be rename and segregate EB1911 material into an article section, pending the arrival of someone who wants to organize the abbreviations and citations better. Finally, it would be clarifying (if strictly beside the point) if those !voting delete here would explain whether the basis applies to everything else at Abbreviation#See_also. If not, I humbly suggest once more that the solution is rename (because the only offense in this list of impeccably sourced English abbrevations is in the article title). (But let me be clear: my !vote is to keep the title and let renaming and reorganization happen through the normal rhythms of article improvement, not via AfD.) Wareh (talk) 14:55, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that as it stands this article is not a simple list of abbreviations and would not likely have been taken to AfD if it were. Instead, it purports that the subject of what abbreviations the 1911 EB included is a topic worthy of coverage here. This is exactly what you argued on the previous AfD. There has yet to be a convincing argument for why that is the case. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 14:18, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to wikisource and then delete as an article or project page, if people want to link to this within any article HERE which uses these abbreviations. I dont think this is significant enough to be an article here. here's the wikisource page it might belong at.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:13, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per my last keep. Or maybe we don't want to be like encylopedia brittanica, and instead focus on anime 100% of the time.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 18:00, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your last keep comment was "obviously this material is fit for an encyclopedia article". So that's two complete non-reasons. The project's coverage is not a binary choice between "lists of words" and "anime". Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 08:04, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it is, you didn't see the memo on that? Anyhoo, I guess I did not need to articulate that an encyclopedia brittanica entry is inherently encyclopedic. And if one argues it is not, I'll take a lot to be convinced.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 13:16, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep- How many articles does WP have from this reference? I'm actually surprised that there isn't a link/portal to this in every article that uses any of these that aren't common now. Dru of Id (talk) 04:22, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why on Earth would being included in a Wikipedia article's reference section connote notability to an article from the 1911 EB? The function would be the other way around if at all. Nevertheless, we do not have a page on entry on mathematics from the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica, nor indeed any other article which covers, as its subject, an entry from this reference material. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 08:04, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • We have entries, some of which seem to be just cut and pasted directly from the set, as it was public domain; frequently, abbreviations are there intact, unexplained, which may not have been used much in the interim; when a 70 year-old reading a common subject has to do a search for an abbreviation that they've never seen in their life that is older than they are, value is missing for the reader. OMG & LOL are unfamiliar to them too, but while there are uncounted talk and user pages that have them, their frequency in article space is rare, and Wiktionary internet abbreviations isn't here, but while we have links to it, we don't have thousands of articles from a source reference that compiled them. Dru of Id (talk) 15:20, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 2,283 in this [1], although not all of them have abbreviations, let alone unclear ones. Dru of Id (talk) 17:54, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, but the subject of this article is not abbreviation or list of abbreviations: the subject of this article is literally, "this page is about the entry the 1911 EB had for 'abbreviation'". If we need to link to the 1911 EB entry we should do it from Wikisource as we do with any other entry from that encyclopedia. It does not make the entry itself a notable subject for a different encyclopedia. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 21:18, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"The subject of this article is...about the entry the 1911 EB had for 'abbreviation'." No. There is a big difference between "derived from" and "about." This article is derived from one section of that encyclopedic treatment, and it remains one legitimate fragment of a broadly encyclopedic topic, namely, English abbreviations. We would like to possess an encyclopedic treatment of every aspect of this subject. Unfortunately, we only have this fragment. By your logic, our article Lysias is "about the entry the 1911 EB had for Lysias." As for Wiktionary's internet slang list, well, if it were grounded on as solid a WP:RS as the 1911 EB, it could go in Wikipedia's article space as a list, too. Wareh (talk) 02:29, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Taking the 1911 EB and using it to write an article on the history of the abbreviation in the English language would be an interesting research topic, but it is not a reason to maintain what is currently a complete non-article in articlespace on an indefinite basis. The potential for an article to be an improved is a good argument to keep it: the potential that it could be completely transmogrified into an examination of a quite different subject is not. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 12:23, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • • When I follow the link, it takes me to three lists of the abbreviations used in the 1911 set, not an entry that explains what an abbreviation is; just what do you see there? Dru of Id (talk) 23:08, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • That is precisely my point. If we need readers to understand what an archaic abbreviation means then we should point them at the original document as hosted by Wikisource rather than some article on the article hosted here. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 23:42, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Articles must still demonstrate notability according to Wikipedia policy & guidelines, and "was in EB 1911" is not one of those criteria. We have based articles on material from EB articles, yes, but using that example, this 'Abbreviation' article from the EB 1911 could be used for the Abbreviation article on Wikipedia, if there was anything of relevance. We do not, however, as a rule have articles about articles in the 1911 EB, particularly not where that article is simply a word-for-word copy of the article in question. Wikisource is where they belong. Cymru82 (talk) 17:37, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki to Wikisource, An original list of abbreviations can be a good idea for an encyclopedia article; in this case, by "original list" I mean a list compiled by the editors of the encyclopedia in which the list is to appear. This list was compiled not by Wikipedia editors but by editors of the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica. So while this content is encyclopedic in that it appeared in another encyclopedia, all this page amounts to is a copy of another encyclopedia's entry on a subject. and that violates established Wikipedia policy. According to WP:NOTREPOSITORY, "mere collections of public domain or other source material such as entire books or source code, original historical documents, letters, laws, proclamations, and other source material that are only useful when presented with their original, unmodified wording" are inappropriate for Wikipedia. "Complete copies of primary sources may go into Wikisource, but not on Wikipedia," the policy says – and so that is where this material should go. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 01:40, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. But you'll note that in WP:NOTREPOSITORY the examples are source material, not encyclopedia articles. We take over EB1911 encyclopedia articles all the time (I've named Lysias as an example, but there are scores), and that doesn't violate WP:NOTREPOSITORY. So by the rationale of A-Stop-at-Willoughby's, I believe we should keep (because longstanding Wikipedia policy is that EB1911 material is as entitled to our article space as "an original list"). Of course, if anyone wants to grow the EB1911-sourced list with further items "originally" sourced elsewhere, it would be a most welcome improvement, and then we might rename the article. Wareh (talk) 01:47, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're correct: This is not a WP:NOTREPOSITORY violation. I don't know what I was thinking; an encyclopedia article is obviously not a primary source. That said, I still feel that this is a better fit for Wikisource. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 03:18, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a red herring. You appear to be particularly reticent as to what you expect the article to be retitled to. The original EB article was titled abbreviation. We already have an article with that title, and it's significantly better than the 1911 EB's one. We do not need two articles on the same subject. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 08:44, 12 April 2011 (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.