Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pantomath

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 no consensus. Possible merge/redirect. W.marsh 21:44, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pantomath

[edit]

I am aware of that; and if you consider this a dictionary definition there is nothing I can do about that. I thought an article was necessary as there was a red link from "polymath". Excuse my error, if it is an error; I have little experience of writing encyclopedia articles. The entire article in the Encyclopedia Britannica for "a posteriori knowledge" reads "knowledge derived from experience, as opposed to a priori knowledge (q.v.)." I take it Britannica's editorial team don't think they are writing a dictionary. This attempt is not a complete product. How I am to begin an article other than with a definition I do not know. DJMitch 13:38, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedia is not a dictionary

Wikipedia is not a dictionary or a usage or jargon guide. Wikipedia articles are not:

1. Dictionary definitions. Because Wikipedia is not a dictionary, please do not create an entry merely to define a term. An article should usually begin with a good definition; if you come across an article that is nothing more than a definition, see if there is information you can add that would be appropriate for an encyclopedia. An exception to this rule is for articles about the cultural meanings of individual numbers." DJMitch 13:40

  • OK, the article is not purely a definition. But I am unable to find any definition in any dictionary or encyclopedia that I own that refers to pantomath in this context. Even a search of google returns no relevant results for pantomath within any related context to polymath. In brief, I am not even convinced that the word or concept has any wide existence. Please try to convince me otherwise.Senordingdong 13:46, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neither do I think that the word has any wide existence, any more than the concept it represents. "famous pantomaths" and "notable pantomaths" give 0 results on Google; "pantomaths" nothing relevant. However, before questioning this, or even whether the word ought to exist, perhaps one ought to question some of the statements in the article "polymath".

(I'm rather enjoying this. I've never had a threat of deletion before.) DJMitch 13:52, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have done some research, and I think the reference to "pantomath" in the polymath article was both redundant and unnecessary. The word has never been in any wide usage (if at all) amongst speakers of English, so I deleted the sentence. It detracts nothing from the article, so I feel that this was justified. But if you disagree, feel free to revert. Senordingdong 14:10, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I have no problem with your adjustment of that article. (I would not have written this one without what was said in that article before.) I will not be hurt if this article is in the end deleted. DJMitch 14:28, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, but preserve the term pantomath in the article (I am inserting it again). These webpages show that it is actually used in the context of polymath:

"In the words of a modern Australian poet, he appears to be "only interested in everything" - thus, less a polymath than a pantomath);" "the essays of W H R Rivers (another pantomathic doctor)" Kevin Jackson, 2004, The Independent on Sunday, [1]

"Well, I forget the rest. But I'd hate you to get the impression that I had nothing of substance to contribute to this stream of "bouncing, heady talk", as Empson once characterised the dazzling conversation of another English pantomath, Humphrey Jennings." Kevin Jackson, 2001, The (London) Independent [2]

"he is not a polymath but a pantomath" Rupert Hart-Davis, 1956 [3]

I do agree that the word is utterly obscure, and I could not find it in several dictionaries of obscure words. But two different authors, in two different eras have used them. Another Wikipedian 00:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 15:45, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


OK, How about we start with the definitons of "Dictionary" and "Encyclopedia" so that we can see what the differences are:

  • Dictionary

Main Entry: dic·tio·nary Pronunciation: 'dik-sh&-"ner-E, -"ne-rE Function: noun Inflected Form(s): plural -nar·ies Etymology: Medieval Latin dictionarium, from Late Latin diction-, dictio word, from Latin, speaking 1 : a reference source in print or electronic form containing words usually alphabetically arranged along with information about their forms, pronunciations, functions, etymologies, meanings, and syntactical and idiomatic uses 2 : a reference book listing alphabetically terms or names important to a particular subject or activity along with discussion of their meanings and applications 3 : a reference book giving for words of one language equivalents in another 4 : a computerized list (as of items of data or words) used for reference (as for information retrieval or word processing)

  • Encyclopedia

Main Entry: en·cy·clo·pe·dia Pronunciation: in-"sI-kl&-'pE-dE-& Function: noun Etymology: Medieval Latin encyclopaedia course of general education, from Greek enkyklios + paideia education, child rearing, from paid-, pais child -- more at FEW

a work that contains information on all branches of knowledge or treats comprehensively a particular branch of knowledge usually in articles arranged alphabetically often by subject

I think we can see by these definitons that the main difference is in the objective. That an encyclopedia links branches of knowledge. Obvously they both use words, it is in how the knowledge is organized. The Dictionary is discrete, has nothing to do with branches of knowledge. It is the linking of the term that raises it above mere dictionary status.

Keep So in conclusion I think we should keep the article and make it a stub until it can be further expanded per wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary as I see it now it violates no wiki rules and there is no merit to deletionTstrobaugh 17:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, non-notable term. Unless we get some referenced material (remember, Wikipedia is not for original research!) discussing pantomaths, or articles which are likely to link to pantomath, there's no use in an article. Sockatume 18:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I in this context, where I've probably used the term "non-notable" scruffily, I mean that the term is pretty much unused. For example a search of the Wikipedia shows it's only referred to as a derivative of Polymath. We have plenty of illustrative articles and scholarly discussion of polymaths (much-referenced), but if you look out there, almost nobody uses the word "pantomath". It's practically a neologism. There's nothing to build an article around. Sockatume 02:36, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's not so much a neologism, in fact it's ancient, it's greek. I see it as an alternative prefix to ..math, sort of like neoconservative, ultraconservative etc. It's a qualifier that creates a more distinguished subset of polymanths, the pantomaths. I mean that's what the word polymath does, distinguishes the highly gifted people from the ordinary, pantomath is simply the logical endpoint beyond which there can be none higher.Tstrobaugh 16:09, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm having a lot of trouble picking appropriate words lately. My point is that it's a term which is very seldom used, as it refers to something essentially hypothetical. I'm strugging to think how we can build an encyclopedic article of any real length around it, so I think it should be left as a note in the polymath article. Sockatume 18:07, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep possibly as Merge and redirect Rich Farmbrough, 12:05 4 October 2006 (GMT).

Keep possibly as Merge and redirect or as a stub seems like a good option to me, I'm reversing my old vote to keep. However, the current article would have to be changed, as some of its lines seem to convey the personal opinion of the editor, and not cross-referenced knowledge. Another Wikipedian 06:50, 6 October 2006 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pantomath&oldid=1138202671"