Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Double cross

: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. The matter of whether to merge or not can be taken up on the article talk page if desired. Stifle (talk) 08:36, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

=[[Double cross]]=

:{{la|Double cross}} – (View AfDView log{{•}} {{plainlink|1=http://toolserver.org/~betacommand/cgi-bin/afdparser?afd={{urlencode:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Double cross}}|2=AfD statistics}})

:({{Find sources|Double cross}})

We already have an article for betrayal. Powers T 19:45, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

  • Keep - The article needs a better definition than "betrayal" and in-line citations for the etymology. The relationship between betrayal and double cross is something like that between spy and double agent, hence the "double".Abby Kelleyite (talk) 20:13, 18 July 2010 (UTC) I changed the definition to "a phrase meaning to deceive by double-dealing" from Merriam-Webster. [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/double-cross] Abby Kelleyite (talk) 20:27, 18 July 2010 (UTC) Then again maybe it should be transwikied to Wiktionary. WP:NOT#DICT. I'm unclear on the meaning of this sentence from the policy: "In some cases, a word or phrase itself may be an encyclopedic subject,{{underdiscussion-inline|talkpage=Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia is not a dictionary#Proposal}}". Abby Kelleyite (talk) 20:56, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
  • What it means is that some lexical topics have undergone extensive analysis by linguists. Words like fuck have had entire books written about them, and therefore we have enough material to write an encyclopedic article focusing solely on the word itself, rather than on what the word denotes. I think it's obvious that "double cross", while certainly a notable topic in the sense of betrayal, has not itself been the subject of extensive scholarly discussion (as a phrase). In other words, the topic that "double cross" denotes has been analyzed, but the phrase "double cross" has not. Powers T 00:38, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
  • You're being misled by the badly written introduction. (This article has been badly developed. See below.) If the article had been written in accordance with Wikipedia:Writing better articles#Use of 'refers to', it would have begun "In boxing, a double cross is where both parties to an agreement break that agreement." (as per the source below) and you wouldn't be on this tangent in the first place. Uncle G (talk) 17:48, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete and move Double cross (disambiguation) here. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:01, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep Double cross has a specific sporting meaning and so is somewhat different from concepts such as treachery, betrayal, double-dealing and the like. To blur all these distinctions is sloppy and would tend to mislead our readership. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:11, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Interesting. The last time that I came across this article, in 2005, it was about the double-cross symbol, known in heraldry as the cross patriarchal (but it's also explicitly called the double cross, Clarityfiend). I see that that was expanded upon and then scribbled over. That's verifiable information that has vanished from Wikipedia as a result of poor editing. Colonel Warden is right that we should we should cover the sporting concept. But look to Gilbert Odd's Encyclopedia of Boxing ({{ISBN|9781555213954}}) for the right way to do that. Odd covers the cross and the double-cross as one (on page 175). It's pointless to separate the twain. Other sources (covering both boxing and wrestling) go further, and explain how crosses and double crosses relate to "trusts", "works", and "shoots". Again, they are not really separable, but parts of a larger whole. Uncle G (talk) 17:48, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to Betrayal. There's no need for dozens of short articles about the same concept, when all of the subtle differences could be discussed in one article. SnottyWong comment 22:10, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

  • Wow, this is complicated. Here's my suggestion: First, create Double cross (symbol) or some-such as a redirect to Patriarchal cross and add that to Double cross (disambiguation). The historical content Uncle G mentions had no sources or detail beyond the fact that such a cross appears on the coat of arms of Hungary. Next, create Double cross (boxing), either a stub describing the sense mentioned by Colonel Warden or as a redirect to Cross (boxing), where the information that would otherwise be in the stub should be added. Then add that to the DAB page. Finally, move the DAB to this title -- oh and finally finally add a Wiktionary link to the DAB. I guess that's a kind of delete. Cnilep (talk) 18:25, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
  • There's no need for double cross (symbol). I've updated the disambiguation article. (I looked up the correct name for the Unicode character, too.) There are two sorts of crosses in boxing. You're thinking of a cross punch. The other sort of "cross", per Odd cited above and per {{ISBN|9780415262934}} pages 190–191, is where a boxer breaks an agreement to "work" a card and instead decides to "shoot". A "double cross" is where both fighters decide to do that. Uncle G (talk) 21:07, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Ah, I misunderstood. Thank you for updating the DAB. All that remains to be done (if others credit my suggestion) is to create content on the cross/double cross/trusts etc. as you describe. I don't think the creation or non-creation of that page would really effect the outcome of this deletion discussion, though. Cnilep (talk) 00:58, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep and create new articles or sections as suggested by Cnilep. Bearian (talk) 21:34, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep I was looking for the definition of this phrase and found this article. It explains it well and goes beyond a simple dictionary definition. Laurent (talk) 13:11, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
  • If you were looking for a definition, why did you look in an encyclopedia? We already have an article on this topic, which would have been just as illuminating for you. Powers T 12:53, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I searched for it on Google and it's the first article that came up, so I guess at least Google thinks it's a more relevant result than the Wiktionary definition (and the Wikipedia article is indeed a lot more comprehensive). Laurent (talk) 15:42, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Merge some content to Betrayal and either move Double cross (disambiguation) here or redirect the name to Wiktionary. The article as it currently stands is a WP:DICDEF, and I am unclear of its potential for development. However, if it does have potential, then it is more likely to grow when placed in context as a section within the parent article - Betrayal. However one reads it, a double cross is a form of betrayal. SilkTork *YES! 10:57, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

::Merge content into a subsection in Betrayal marked "Double cross". Move Double cross (disambiguation) into this namespace, so readers looking for "double cross" will land at Double cross and find all the possible alternative meanings. Update Double cross (disambiguation) to provide a link to Betrayal#Double cross. SilkTork *YES! 11:01, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

: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.