| Revision as of 12:56, 1 June 2013 editColonel Warden (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers31,041 edits →Teach fish how to swim: atd← Previous edit | Revision as of 04:53, 2 June 2013 edit undoChrisGualtieri (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers457,369 edits →Teach fish how to swim: reNext edit → | ||
| Line 37: | Line 37: | ||
| * '''Delete''' - Although it is tempting to copy-paste a generic Keep rationale for this entire lot of nominations, several of which are pretty badly considered, it doesn't seem to me that the significance of this phrase or its sourceability is sufficient to support more than the stubbish dictionary definition we see here. ] (]) 17:24, 31 May 2013 (UTC) | * '''Delete''' - Although it is tempting to copy-paste a generic Keep rationale for this entire lot of nominations, several of which are pretty badly considered, it doesn't seem to me that the significance of this phrase or its sourceability is sufficient to support more than the stubbish dictionary definition we see here. ] (]) 17:24, 31 May 2013 (UTC) | ||
| :* The actual point of ] is that we should combine topics which are essentially the same rather than separating them by headword(s). So, per ] and ], shouldn't we just merge this with ]? ] (]) 12:56, 1 June 2013 (UTC) | :* The actual point of ] is that we should combine topics which are essentially the same rather than separating them by headword(s). So, per ] and ], shouldn't we just merge this with ]? ] (]) 12:56, 1 June 2013 (UTC) | ||
| :'''Merge''' to ] for now. ] (]) 04:53, 2 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 04:53, 2 June 2013
Teach fish how to swim
- Teach fish how to swim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:NOTDICT —Ryulong (琉竜) 05:49, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. czar · · 06:47, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- Delete. Bueller 007 (talk) 08:13, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- Hi Bueller. You've read WP:JUSTAVOTE, right? It's better to give at least some form of rationale. Best — Mr. Stradivarius 08:57, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- Blatantly obvious case of a dictionary definition. So obvious, in fact, that it shouldn't need to be stated, but I take your point. Bueller 007 (talk) 09:36, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- Hi Bueller. You've read WP:JUSTAVOTE, right? It's better to give at least some form of rationale. Best — Mr. Stradivarius 08:57, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- Delete. I agree with the nominator - this falls foul of WP:DICDEF. — Mr. Stradivarius 08:57, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- I wasn't aware of the other related nominations when I made my delete recommendation, and I considered the article on its own merits. Due to the controversy that has sprung up around these nominations, I think a more detailed rationale is called for here. Although Misplaced Pages is not a dictionary, we can have some articles about words per WP:WORDISSUBJECT. The difference is that "such articles must go beyond what would be found in a dictionary entry (definition, pronunciation, etymology, use information, etc.), and include information on the social or historical significance of the term". The one-sentence "origins" section would seem to be an example of this, but it is sourced to a primary source, and I can't find other sources that discuss the social or historical significance of the term. — Mr. Stradivarius 01:59, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep per WP:SK. As noted above, this seems to be part of a bundle of nominations related to a geographical dispute and seem to have frivolous, irrelevant character contrary to WP:POINT, WP:HARASS and WP:DISRUPT. Warden (talk) 15:09, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- As noted where? This has nothing to do with a "geographical dispute". This article may indeed be one of several authored by a certain user but it does not meet any "speedy keep" guidelines.—Ryulong (琉竜) 15:18, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- Comment: This AfD is part of a tag team event -- see here.
|
- It is noteworthy that Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2013_May_31 includes so many articles in which the same writer invested time and research? --Tenmei (talk) 15:21, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Per previous comments, this appears to have nothing to do with dictionary definitions, but appears to be part of a pointy set of inappropriate AfD nominations. Acroterion (talk) 15:23, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- Tenmei is someone who's been admonished and banned by the arbitration committee on two separate occassions. And editors previously uninvolved with him are agreeing that this is not a suitable article. The fact that he's continuing his previously found by arbcom to be obstinant editing practices of making unnecessary tables in these discussions should not undermine the fact that this article has no place on Misplaced Pages.—Ryulong (琉竜) 15:30, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Ryulong indicates that User:Ryulong was himself admonished by arbcom and advised to behave in a decorous manner, avoiding baiting and disruption. Warden (talk) 16:14, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- How lovely of you to bring that up. I fail to see how making 3 AFDs is disruptive.—Ryulong (琉竜) 04:16, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Ryulong indicates that User:Ryulong was himself admonished by arbcom and advised to behave in a decorous manner, avoiding baiting and disruption. Warden (talk) 16:14, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- Tenmei is someone who's been admonished and banned by the arbitration committee on two separate occassions. And editors previously uninvolved with him are agreeing that this is not a suitable article. The fact that he's continuing his previously found by arbcom to be obstinant editing practices of making unnecessary tables in these discussions should not undermine the fact that this article has no place on Misplaced Pages.—Ryulong (琉竜) 15:30, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Going with my comments on the other articles of this nature, it's more than just a dictionary definition. I say keep it.—Σosthenes12 16:55, 31 May 2013 (UTC)Sosthenes12
- Delete - Although it is tempting to copy-paste a generic Keep rationale for this entire lot of nominations, several of which are pretty badly considered, it doesn't seem to me that the significance of this phrase or its sourceability is sufficient to support more than the stubbish dictionary definition we see here. Carrite (talk) 17:24, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- The actual point of WP:DICDEF is that we should combine topics which are essentially the same rather than separating them by headword(s). So, per WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE, shouldn't we just merge this with Teaching grandmother to suck eggs? Warden (talk) 12:56, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
- Merge to List of English-language idioms for now. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:53, 2 June 2013 (UTC)