Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Magnum opus

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 delete. czar 01:29, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Magnum opus

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

A clean-cut dicdef. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:58, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agreed. Very much a dictionary definition. No doubt we will get people claiming it should be kept because it's a 'notable phrase' or because they can find examples of it being used, but I don't see this going beyond a dicdef. --Michig (talk) 05:53, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:22, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:16, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:16, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Disambiguatize (take that AfD stats bot!) - There are many senses of this term. This one is already covered at Masterpiece, which opens with "Masterpiece or chef d'œuvre in modern use refers to a creation that has been given much critical praise, especially one that is considered the greatest work of a person's career or to a work of outstanding creativity, skill, or workmanship." (emphasis mine). In other words, there's no need for this article, so we might as well delete it and move Magnum opus (disambiguation) into its place. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:54, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguatize: delete the definition and move Magnum opus (disambiguation) here. The DAB already includes a definition and links to Wiktionary and Masterpiece. It is unlikely the topic could be expanded beyond dictionary content without duplicating Masterpiece. Cnilep (talk) 05:56, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguatize seems like the right call here. I cannot find any serious academic treatment of this, but really I don't think see how it is meaningfully different from masterpiece, so I am not sure if a disambig is necessary; nothing else in the see also seems that similar, really, so perhaps redirect might be another option to consider. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:10, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Let's not go into the subtleties of English, but there is a clear difference in the usage of "masterpiece" and "m.o.", although the two do have a common part. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:29, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Disambiguate if needed as this seems best considering the current article. SwisterTwister talk 22:31, 9 May 2016 (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.