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 snowball keep because it's just going that way. Consensus seems to indicate that the page is more than a dictionary definition. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:35, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Craic[edit]

Craic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

The article is an extended dictionary definition:

• any good encyclopedia article is about the idea behind the title words, but here it's explicitly about the word 'craic', and the usage of the word craic.

• translating this article would inevitably leave you having to use the word 'craic', so it's not fully translatable, it's specifically about the Irish/English word craic. That is characteristic of a dictionary entry and this test is in Encyclopedia and WP:NAD, encyclopedic articles translate brilliantly because they're not about the title, they're about the thing, and the thing can be referred to in lots of different ways and with different English and foreign terms. This is specifically about the word craic.

• Note that according to WP:ISNOT, articles Macedonia (terminology) and truthiness are word articles, but truthiness defines itself as being about being a "truth", not the word, and the Macedonia article translates fine because the word 'Macedonia' itself translates in the same way that other place names do, and is perfectly translatable without referring back to English words. So this is widely being misconstrued.

• In the wikipedia the idea of a dicdef is not only a simple dictionary definition, although it can be that, but we obviously don't cover the rest of a dictionary entry either. Indeed, the policy at Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary, is and has always been, that a dictionary article that covers the meaning and usage or a word or term, whereas encyclopedias cover the thing itself. This article fails to do that.

• It's not possible to simply extend a dictionary definition and make an encyclopedia article, whether something is dictionary-like or not is WP:NOTSIZE. It's often claimed that articles on words 'do enough' by simply being longer, anyone claiming that the 'article has done enough' will need to quote the relevant policy; because I've checked and there isn't one. The actual policy says the opposite. A long dictionary entry is still a dictionary entry. Therefore anyone claiming that it's 'done enough' is making a null vote.

• The Wiktionary article is doubtless not perfect, but the Wikipedia isn't supposed to be just a list of dictionary words that are badly covered at Wiktionary; we have to have higher standards than being mere dictionaries!!! If the wiktionary article needs improving- improve it!

• the word means 'fun'-but we have an article on fun already, so it's basically a WP:content fork of that!

• if the Wikipedia was really about words we would have articles on adverbs, adjectives, prepositions, verbs etc. but we don't have any of those (see WP:Title).

• The article is a neologism (which is normally understood to be defined in the last 25 years, this is much newer than that); we don't have articles on neologisms. Articles on neologisms are supposed to be written with titles that don't use the neologism, but that doesn't seem to be possible here.

Given the limited topic of the article (as defined in the introduction as simply being about the word) it doesn't appear that the subject and title of this article can sustain a proper encyclopedic topic, and I'm therefore asking for the subjects complete removal from the wikipedia, until somebody can write a new article that doesn't simply define it as a word. We have wiktionary to do that.

So I'm calling for TRANSWIKI of this neologism so that this material can be used to improve the Wiktionary as required and then an admin DELETE. - Wolfkeeper 16:04, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Further comment: even if there's material here which people think could/should be kept, that's not a non-delete criteria, that just means that material should be merged somewhere. Given the topic for this article that the authors have chosen. In my opinion they have to the end of the deletion review to change it, otherwise it must go.- Wolfkeeper 17:21, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. —- Wolfkeeper 16:21, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, as usual with Wolfkeeper's crusade to rid Wikipedia of articles about words. This is not a dicdef (despite his persistent attempts to be the sole arbiter of what WP:DICDEF says and means), it's an encyclopedic article whose topic is a word. And yes, words are also valid topics for encyclopedia articles, just like everything else that exists. It's well sourced, it's notable, it's interesting and informative, it's everything an encyclopedia article needs to be. Transwikiing to Wiktionary is unacceptable because - guess what! - it's not a dictionary definition! Wiktionary already has a dicdef on craic, and doesn't need or want an encyclopedia article taking up that space. Oh, and calling something a "neologism" doesn't make it one: the term "craic" has been around for centuries - nor is it true that we don't have articles on neologisms. We certainly do if they're notable and verifiable. +Angr 16:35, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment No personal attacks; and the article itself claims that Craic is not centuries old. That seems to be your OR, you might like to not do that. This article does not meet the spirit or letter of the policies and guidelines.- Wolfkeeper 16:50, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The article contains content that would be inappropriate for wiktionary. As Angr mentions, this is yet another example of Wolfkeeper attempting to impose an extremely myopic interpretation of policy. WP:NOT is quite clear that In some cases, a word or phrase itself may be an encyclopedic subject. I don't think Wolfkeeper has shown that this is not the case for this article. older ≠ wiser 16:41, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. I would be happier if the comments in the section 'Sociology' formed the center of this article, rather than being almost an aside. Most of the content is, as Wolfkeeper suggests, rather too word-centric for comfort. That said, it is not precisely a dictionary definition, and there are sources offered. It also can't be considered a neologism with sources dating to 1950. The 'Sociology' section and the first paragraph of 'History' are encyclopedic, if weak. It's a question clean-up, possibly re-write, rather than deletion. Cnilep (talk) 17:12, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep More than just a dictionary definition. Lugnuts (talk) 17:18, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep as this is obviously a disruptive nom; Wolfkeeper's own comments reveal that this is an attempt to affect ongoing policy discussions at WP:NOTDIC.
  But while I'm here, this article is *not* a dicdef to begin with. WP:NOT specifically indicates that words can be the subject of encyclopedia articles; even if not, this particular article is supplemented with information on the concept, and (as I've pointed out) more could be added easily. So even if word articles were outlawed, the solution would be to rewrite the article to make it about the concept. The reason that hasn't been done is that after multiple discussions, no one besides Wolfkeeper has had any problem with the current setup. Either way, the presence of historical and sociological information on the concept make this not a dictionary entry. And it's certainly *not* a neologism.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:50, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's completely failing to WP:AGF; I merely requested that the policy not be rewritten during the course of this review; particularly by you Cuchuallain, as this could be easily construed to be begging the question; I think the old version at WP:NEO is the agreed, consensus, and there was/is only agreement to MERGE that anyway, and I fully support that.- Wolfkeeper 18:44, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sure Wolfkeeper, I'm sure that after months of protesting the article, it's just a coincidence that you finally started an AfD while you're involved in a related policy discussion, which coincidentally isn't going in your favor, and then coincidentally asserted that the existence of the AfD precludes anyone from editing the policy. Sure doesn't sound like stonewalling to me.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:24, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Violating WP:AGF WP:NPA WP:Wikipedia:Gaming the system generally only make you look bad, but that's your problem I guess. In the meantime this is an AFD.- Wolfkeeper 23:52, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep regardless of the questionable intentions behind the nomination, most of the sources cited are not about the term. Merely citing usage examples of the term and dictionary entries do not establish it as a notable concept worthy of a separate entry. That said, the ireland-fun-facts.com citation is the sort of coverage that we need to establish it as a notable concept. A search has revealed more secondary source analysis of the term/concept, such as this. It appears that notability can be established, as treatment of the term is more than trivial, and the sources seem reliable. Gigs (talk) 17:57, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per the long list above, even if the article could be improved. The nominator cculd do well to read the article and to discover for himself that the article goes further than merely offering a dictionary definition. Do you hold something against words perhaps? Did any word ever hurt you? Cavila (talk) 18:32, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course. Show me a person that has never been hurt by a word and I'll show you a baby that died soon after birth. ;-)- Wolfkeeper 18:52, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Nom is using an unduly bureaucratic interpretation of WP:NOTDIC. The article is weak but adequate. Johnuniq (talk) 23:23, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Literally half the references in the article are to dictionaries; the first 5 references are to the same book- the OED and the 6th is another dictionary. This article is thumbing its nose at the Wikipedia and everything it stands for.- Wolfkeeper 23:51, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Despite Wolfkeeper's attempt to portray otherwise, WP:NOT states that "[i]n some cases, a word or phrase itself may be an encyclopedic subject." Quite hilariously, his assertion that "we don't have articles on neologisms" is refuted by looking at the article Neologism, itself a "word" article. It is clear that the community accepts that articles like Yankee and Thou belong on Wikipedia and that it is capable of distinguishing between articles which are dictionary definitions and those which have encyclopedic merit. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:36, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:NPA. Note that the word 'neologism' isn't a neologism anyway.- Wolfkeeper 23:52, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • An accurate observation of your views on policy is a PA? Hmmmm. And if you look at Neoligism, you'll see a list of articles on neoligisms. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:12, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Change Craic is an old Gaelic word which has been used for centuries by Irish People to describe an atmosphere of, or potential for fun, joviality and enjoyment. It has been brought across to the English language as many other words have done it the past when there is no simple substitution which adequately conveys the meaning or emotion. Craic is still alive and well in everyday usage in Ireland. My only objection to the present article is that it conveys an opinion that Craic was some how created by Irish Pubs for the purpose of self promotion. Surely the Wikipedia article should only state fact not opinion.- JerryFromDerry 17:25, 17 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.74.197.118 (talk) [reply]

Comment: JerryFromDerry, you have as much a right to !Vote to this AfD as anyone else does. I note that this is your second only edit, and you have no userpage nor talkpage. I encourage you to start an account - it has many benefits. I would also encourage you to change your signature format: JerryFromDerry appears to be rather similar to Wolfkeeper. This may possibly raise some other issues --Shirt58 (talk) 14:50, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep- I see no problem with this article that needs to be solved by deletion rather than editing. It's clearly more than a simple dictionary definition and is well sourced. Reyk _YO! 08:07, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. Clearly more than a dictionary definition, and with some work it could (should) be much more. There is a whole cultural story waiting to be told here. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 22:45, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Being 'Clearly more than a dictionary definition' is a null vote; there's no such policy anywhere. AFDs are a policy-based discussion, and you've failed to refer to any policy.- Wolfkeeper 23:52, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • You keep on referring to WP:NOTDIC as the policy that mandates deletion of the article. Snalwibma is saying the article is more than a dictionary definition. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:12, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's not either or. Just because the dictionary wouldn't take it, doesn't mean it meets the criteria for keeping it here. WP:NAD doesn't define the criteria for a dictionary article; the dictionary writers do that. WP:NAD defines one aspect of what Wikipedia accepts. 'Going beyond a dictionary definition' means nothing in itself- many essay articles go beyond a dictionary definition as well; we don't take them either. There is no policy that going beyond a dictionary article makes it a criteria for inclusion, because that would be ridiculous.- Wolfkeeper 01:38, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Can you point to the policy that says an article that is more than a dictionary definition should be excluded? I doubt it, although I'm sure you imagine that it is so. WP:NOT defines what is not appropriate for inclusion. It is disingenuous for you criticize editors who feel an article does not meet that criteria for exclusion on the basis that there is no policy explicitly permitting inclusion. older ≠ wiser 01:51, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • (ec) You're not getting this. As you put the article up for deletion, it's up to you or other deleters to come up with policy-based reason for deletion. You're quoting WP:NAD - fine. Most of us are saying the policy doesn't apply to this article. As I see it, Wikipedia has criteria for deletion, not inclusion (else, point me to the policy that mandates the inclusion of our umpteen Simpsons or other pop culture trivia articles). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:54, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Craic refers to an Irish cultural celebratory mindset. If you are going to delete "craic", you had better delete the entry for "Mela", the sandskrit word for "gathering". Which is currently not subject to a deletion flag. Mark Simpson 09:53 UTC 18th April 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.123.77.134 (talk) 09:53, 18 April 2010 (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.