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 Keep as this seems clear to close for now (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 05:19, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Architectonic[edit]

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

Redirect to Architecture, which is the primary topic for this disambiguation and the only topic that corresponds to an article in the list of disambiguable topics. Architectural already redirects to Architecture. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 11:32, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:03, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:03, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as useful. I don't think users landing on this page are likely to be looking for Architecture. A better reason for deleting it would be the fact that it's a list of dictionary definitions. Uanfala (talk) 17:26, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 17:27, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 17:27, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 17:27, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Soft redirect using Template:Wiktionary redirect. I think the salient point is, as Uanfala says, that at the moment it looks like WP:DICTIONARY. I'm not sure architecture is the primary topic for this; I've mostly come across the term in the context of Kantian philosophy and many of the Google results it turns up are related to that or other "architectonic" forms of philosophy. Unless and until someone creates an architectonic philosophy article or similar, though, it makes most sense to just redirect this to Wiktionary. —Nizolan ^(talk) 17:43, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Struck and changing to keep per Rhododendrites below. I also didn't notice that the Kantian philosophy link was in fact to Kantian architectonics, which is already a (perfectly justified) redirect. With C. S. Peirce as well—he also comes up on the first page of Google results for the term—I think there's enough material for this to be a dab and not just a Wiktionary redirect, though I'm still iffy about the other two definitions the page offers. —Nizolan ^(talk) 20:14, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I've just revised the page. It now has a distinct and relevant bluelink on each line. Peirce's architectonic is also a notable concept that could sustain its own article, but for now is mentioned in the article about him. Architecture, structure, Kant, and Peirce justify a disambiguation. @Nizolan and Finnusertop: does this change your opinion? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:46, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Rhododendrites' reasoning and page improvements. This looks like a reasonable DAB page now, with verifiable topics. --Mark viking (talk) 20:22, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Please add these considerations to the others on the "keep" side. The Architecture article does not even mention architectonics which, in the context of architecture, as I remember well from my Cooper Union days, is one of the foundational requirements in learning the art of architecture, much as drawing forms the foundation of the art of painting. And just as one may criticize a painting for it's drawing problems, buildings and landscape designs are criticized for their archtectonic problems. It probably deserves its own article or at least a section in the Architecture one. See the Cooper Union online catalog listing [1]and also this [2] from Texas Tech. But I did not arrive here because of that use of the term anyway, but because I came across the term twice today in a context where I had not seen it earlier: Aristotelian studies: (1) Chapter 9 of Theory and Practice in Aristotle's Natural Science, ed. David Ebrey, an article by M. R. Johnson, "Aristotle's architectonic sciences," [3] and (2) in a BMCR review [4] of Aristotle's Physics: A Critical Guide. Also missing from the disambiguation page is Center for Functional Engineered Nano Architectonics - which suggests that the term is also in use in computer architecture, and has been for many years in the discussion of major forms such as Von Neuman versus parallel designs. See "Computer Architectonics" [5]. —Blanchette (talk) 03:51, 24 March 2016 (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.