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. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:45, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Meta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary - This is a prefix with a variety of meanings, as is demonstrated by the content placed in this article which only discusses various different ways that this prefix is used. The only unifying principle for the content on this page is that it all uses the same word, i.e. a dictionary entry. We already have Meta (disambiguation) and each application of the prefix (i.e. Metaphysics, meta-ethics, meta-cognition) belongs on the respective page. - car chasm (talk) 16:22, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:30, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Retinalsummer (talk) 16:48, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment If deleting, we need to choose a page to occupy the title. Meta Platforms may be the primary topic by usage but not by long-term significance. Meta (disambiguation) seems a good candidate. (Redirecting Meta to the dab would be wrong.) Certes (talk) 17:14, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: "not a dictionary" clearly does not apply in cases where the content far exceeds what would appear in Wiktionary. Whether there ought to be that much content is another matter, but this page has existed for eighteen years, and has over eight hundred edits during that time, some by experienced editors whose names I recognize. I would be very reluctant to conclude that the contents do not belong on Wikipedia. If the content looks like it's poorly connected, perhaps some of it should be split off or merged into other articles. If the remaining core of the article is too brief to justify an independent article, then deletion or merger may be appropriate. P Aculeius (talk) 23:26, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm sympathetic to what you're saying, it doesn't seem like any of the sources (apart from dictionary sources) are actually discussing "meta" itself. Rather, the article is made up of sources about meta-this and meta-that. Without sources for the overall perspective, we're getting close to original research. Retinalsummer (talk) 01:12, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I might be wrong (and feel free to explain why you think so! I've been wrong before and would prefer not to be in the future!), but I'm pretty sure what you're saying here about the length of content is contradicted by the policy I quoted? - Here's the relevant section. And though I think there is certainly content on the page that could belong in other places (and may or may not be there already), I don't think the length of time an article has existed or who has edited it have any influence on whether or not a page is appropriate - I certainly don't think "hey, is this even a single article or a WP:CHIMERA" on every article I edit and would not expect others to do so. But this article was on the backlog of articles that have never been assessed for importance by WikiProject Philosophy after the template was added, I'm not surprised to have found a few (much less than 1% of them) are dictionary entries or other non-encyclopedic topics that fell through the cracks. - car chasm (talk) 01:24, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that we're talking about simple length—the explanation at "Not a Dictionary" refers to numerous things that might naturally occur in a dictionary entry. This article contains a lot of discussion that wouldn't be found in Wiktionary. The more applicable subtopic of the policy might be WP:WORDISSUBJECT. However, I agree that this article looks a bit like a chimaera and should probably be split and merged into multiple articles. Whether there's anything left at the end is another matter—but the simple fact that this article has been around for as long as it has, and received as many edits as it has over that time, while not proving that it ought to be kept, does argue that we ought to think very carefully about whether there is something that could be salvaged as an article—or whether this should be redirected to the disambiguation page, which would at least preserve its very considerable history. P Aculeius (talk) 15:55, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Passes GNG and the article is clearly not a dictionary entry.★Trekker (talk) 08:37, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, to the extent that the article seems to discuss several notable topics—but as Carchasm points out, it's a bit of a chimaera, and perhaps its content would be better split and merged among multiple articles. I'm not sure whether there will be enough left to support an article at this topic when that's done, but I think it's worth the effort for the reasons I mentioned in my reply above. P Aculeius (talk) 15:55, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Clearly satisfies GNG. The article is clearly not a dictionary entry but a well-researched piece worthy of an encyclopedia. Rustytrombone (talk) 18:12, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The article is not a list of unrelated meanings for a term, but rather a detailed exposition of a cluster of related meanings tied to an underlying abstract concept. It could use expansion (maybe with citations to Douglas Hofstadter and other philosophers interested in logic and self-reference) and probably clarification or restructuring, but it is a notable topic and clearly more than a dictionary entry. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 23:17, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Satisfies GNG and is not a dictionary entry. -Object404 (talk) 15:59, 23 September 2022 (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.