Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elenchos
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. -- AllyUnion (talk) 06:47, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Elenchos[edit]
This was tagged for speedy deletion, with the reason "this belongs soley in Wiktionary". This seems debatable to me, so I brought it here. Kappa 05:58, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Wouldn't think Wiktionary. If there is significantly more to say on the subject, expand article. Otherwise redirect. Egil 06:55, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Wiktionary already has elenctic, with a note that it needs Wiktionarification. One of the things that a Wiktionary article needs is an etymology section, and most of this article qualifies as that. However, this article has apparently sprung from a redlink in Socrates, and there might be more to say on the subject. Wiktionary the etymological content to Wiktionary:elenctic; and (as per Egil) either Keep as {{philo-stub}} if there is more to say on this that isn't already said at Socrates or Redirect, removing the circular link from Socrates, if there isn't. Uncle G 14:15, 2005 Feb 11 (UTC)
- It seems to me (though I am not an expert) that there is more to the concept of elenchos than a dictionary definition could cover, so I can't agree with "belongs solely in Wiktionary". Keep or merge and redirect. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:31, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. The original "circular link" had Elenchos as a redirect to Socrates with no explanation; and the only page linking to Elenchos was Socrates itself. So it wasn't red, but it went nowhere, and there wasn't nearly enough on Socrates to say exactly what Elenchos referred to. I think there's whole books to be written on the subject, with Socrates as a primary example of a user but not the entire focus, so it would best not be a section in Socrates. {{philo-stub}} is perfect for this article. Blair P. Houghton 20:34, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, but in need of expansion. Megan1967 22:54, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
*Wiktionary : if expansion is in the cards for this article, then it will be re-introduced with more flesh; also re-direct the link within the Socratic method article to the Wiktionary entry. Courtland 03:39, 2005 Feb 12 (UTC)
- Redirect to Socratic method with the notation Template:R_with_possibilities ... I had a change of heart after reading Uncle G's words :) Courtland 03:42, 2005 Feb 12 (UTC)
- Socratic method redirects to Socrates. Elenchos is a specific word referring to Socrates' technique. Google cumes up with 7,600 results [1] while Elenchus which has the same meaning and has 19700 results. [2]
We should either create an article for Elenchus and redirect Elenchos to that or vice versa or alternatively create an article for Socratic method and redirect the elenchos and elenchus. No vote yet. Capitalistroadster 09:12, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, It's a stub for further expansion. I use the method, and so does a Catholic Philosopher today. He has written many books with a couple of them using the elenchos method.WHEELER 18:58, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.