Thesaurus talk:Aldebaran

Deletion discussion

The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process.

It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.

---

Wikisaurus:Aldebaran

This is a Wikisaurus entry for a star. Having Wikisaurus entries for individual stars seems a bad thing. Its synonyms such as "Alpha Tauri", "α Tauri", and "87 Tauri" are all redlinks, and are going to remain so for some time, unless the community decides that star names of the form "Alpha Tauri" should be included. The synonyms can be entered in the mainspace if really desired, of which I am not convinced. I propose to delete the entry now and recreate it later if the decision is made to include a significant number of entries for stars in Wikisaurus; the entry should go lest it becomes an example for creation for further such entries. --Dan Polansky 19:10, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Notably, existing entries for names of stars that include Greek letters include Zeta Geminorum, Beta Lyrae, Epsilon Pegasi and Alpha Centauri A. Most names of stars with that particular characteristic are not defined on Wiktionary. My last example is from 2009; the others are from 2010. Reasons to keep such entries may include displaying their characteristics, such as the fact that Gamma Arietis is actually three stars. --Daniel. 03:09, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

The only problem I can see is it's rather narrow as a thesaurus topic. But it seems to me the links would meet CFI, I don't see them as sum of parts or not dictionary material. And to nit-pick a little, you don't need a community consensus to create an entry, if so we'd being doing well if we created even one entry a day. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:38, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Non-sum-of-partness in proper names has not been taken to be a condition sufficient for inclusion, or else you would want to have "Albert Einstein". --Dan Polansky 10:41, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

One very common argument pro-deletion of names like "Albert Einstein" is calling them sum-of-parts of a given name and a surname. In this case: "Albert" + "Einstein". --Daniel. 10:46, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

IMO I've already covered this (Dan P's argument) above. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:48, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

All that I am saying is that, unless we want to include all names of artistic works including novels in Wiktionary, we cannot allow attestation combined with semantic non-sum-of-partness as a sufficient criterion for inclusion. I do not see that you have covered this in anyway, or how you have dealth with the exclusion of "Albert Einstein" that I have pointed out, an exclusion that follows from a recent vote. The names of the form "Alpha Centauri" show a similar combinatorial freedom as "Albert Einstein". --Dan Polansky 11:03, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

The terms "Albert Einstein", "Albert" and "Einstein" are synonymous in the context of referring to one person (or more people), and all of them can be used alone while making sense, so it's easier to claim that the first is a sum of parts. The terms "Alpha" and "Centauri" are not exactly synonymous with "Alpha Centauri" and cannot be used alone while making sense, so it's easier to claim that the last isn't a sum of parts. --Daniel. 11:26, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think this is the route to go down to get this entry deleted. It feels like assuming the invalidity of the aforementioned entries before they are even created, which is more or less the opposite of how we actually do it, that is, an entry is valid until it fails RFD or RFV. Anyway, the question for me is what limits are there on Wikisaurus entries? It's certainly best suited to topics usually covered by thesauri like "happy", "sad" etc. --Mglovesfun (talk) 19:43, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

The redlinks are only one reason for this RFD. If "Alpha Tauri", "α Tauri", and "87 Tauri" are seen as significant synonyms that call for a dedicated thesaurus page, Wikisaurus will be flooded with pages for names of stars, in spite of names of stars being a borderline thesaurus (AKA word finder) content. If, for example, "Alpha Tauri" is only included in some holonym page such as Wikisaurus:Taurus (where it already is), the number of Wikisaurus pages devoted to stars becomes reasonably low. Wikisaurus:Taurus is a reasonably small page right now, and can comfortably host various synonyms of the star names as further meronyms. --Dan Polansky 07:25, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

If someone were to create the red links as full English entries, would you nominate them for RFD? And (ok, very hypothetical now) if they were to pass, would you still want this page deleted? Mglovesfun (talk) 12:04, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

If someone created entries for "Alpha Tauri", "α Tauri", and "87 Tauri", I would have one reason less to get Wikisaurus:Aldebaran deleted, but I would try to get Wikisaurus:Aldebaran deleted nontheless. I do not know whether I would nominate the mentioned mainspace entries. --Dan Polansky 07:28, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Delete as too narrow a WS topic anyway.​—msh210℠ (talk) 21:13, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Deleted bd2412 T 00:15, 2 August 2013 (UTC)