Talk:Song of the Three Holy Children

The template-generated Wikisource link is wrong. Equinox ◑ 23:52, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Not wrong, but ‘Wikisource does not have a text with this exact name’. I’ve removed the templet. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 15:26, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

RFD discussion: July 2022–January 2023

The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for deletion (permalink).

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.

---

Song of the Three Holy Children

Apparently not a real thing - just part of Prayer of Azariah and Song of the Three Holy Children? Dunderdool (talk) 14:37, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Send to RFV. AG202 (talk) 15:08, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

There is no doubt the term can be found used on its own,^[1] even as a book title.^[2][3][4] But is this lexical material?  --Lambiam 09:22, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

@Lambiam That wasn't the RFD rationale provided though, hence when I suggested to send it to RFV. However, seeing that it can be cited, I'd vote Keep, based on the fact that we have entries for every book in the Bible, including other books like 1 Maccabees which are also found in the Apocrypha. See also: Category:en:Books of the Bible. It would be very strange to have all of those but then delete this one (though it's up for debate on whether or not this is considered its own book, but that's another conversation). Also, the only RFD that I was able to find thus far at Talk:1 Chronicles, ended in consensus for keeping the entry. AG202 (talk) 09:45, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Delete – encyclopedic material, not lexical.  --Lambiam 09:22, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Delete for sure, I agree with Lambiam. Acolyte of Ice (talk) 09:24, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

• Keep per WT:LEMMING[5]. Governed by WT:NSE. Multi-word names of literary works are more liable to be deleted, unlike Lysistrata and Odyssey. The topic is covered at User_talk:Dan_Polansky/2018#Inclusion of literary works. NSE do not have clear criteria and the lemming principle is a nice ad hoc decision aid. The deletion rationale "encyclopedic material" does not refer to policy and does not explain which literary works should be kept; no discernment has been laid bare. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:43, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

RFD-kept by no consensus. It's been almost 4 months + the {{look}} template. AG202 (talk) 02:08, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, AG, I disagree with this. The Bible book is called Prayer of Azariah and Song of the Three Holy Children, not just Song of the Three Holy Children. Dan Polansky's argument is characteristically poor, as Merriam-Webster's entry is probably a mistake. Flackofnubs (talk) 09:28, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Re: "Dan Polansky's argument is characteristically poor" is itself a low-quality argument: a decent criticism of argument involves identification of some part or aspect of the argument that is low-quality. Flackofnubs is Wonderfool, and on my wiki, he would be forbidden from participation in RFD process: it is a person that is banned but the user accounts are tolerated, not because editors want to tolerate them, but because if they won't, the person will keep on creating new accounts anyway and new accounts are going to be target of suspicion of being Wonderfool. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:36, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

• RFD-kept as no consensus for deletion. I discount Wonderfool (Dunderdool, Flackofnubs). Other than that, there are two keeps and two deletes. As for policy, it leaves editor discretion (WT:NSE). The deletionists had enough time to vote delete, and did not take the opportunity. The argument "encyclopedic material, not lexical" is meaningless on the surface of it; in what sense of "lexical", what definition, is a multi-word proper name not "lexical"? A case could be made that this particular proper name should not be kept, but no serious attempt has been made to make the case. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:42, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

RFD deleted - overriding the bad faith closure above, there is clearly a consensus to delete. Plus, "by the strength of argument", the lemming non-policy is not persuasive, as it is not relevant. And if it's really needed then I also vote delete, which makes the consensus for deletion unassailable. Theknightwho (talk) 17:53, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

@Theknightwho Imho this deletion was highly inappropriate. If you want to stop the closure of it being kept, that’s fine, but deleting the entry was a step too far, especially since it hasn’t been a month since the last comment, breaking RFD guidelines. Let alone voting delete and deleting the entry at the same time. Take your issues with Dan Polansky elsewhere as it’s truly starting to negatively affect the project, and you’re openly breaking established guidelines and policies to combat him. I’d like to request that the entry be recreated to its former form and that this discussion plays out how it’s supposed to. AG202 (talk) 19:21, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

I have undeleted the entry, but this has nothing to do with who is closing the threads: it's to do with how they're being closed. Theknightwho (talk) 19:41, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

There was no consensus: there were 2 keeps and 3 deletes, where one of the deletes was by Wonderfool; Wonderfool ought not count. The above is incorrect and ought to be undone. The phrase "encyclopedic material, not lexical" is meaningless, as said. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:40, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Please read WT:NOT. Theknightwho (talk) 18:41, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

I am not anyone's subordinate here and do not accept imperatives. All the peddlers of the "encyclopedic content" argument have to explain why United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland is not encyclopedic content, or World War II; good luck. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:44, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Keep. Similar to Song of Songs, Song of Solomon and Wisdom of Solomon - all of which we have. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 19:12, 30 January 2023 (UTC)