Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Throw out the baby with the bath water

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 SNOW Keep . bd2412 T 15:08, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Throw out the baby with the bath water[edit]

Throw out the baby with the bath water (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 Bueller 007 (talk). 08:42, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The phrase is not in the dictionary. It is well sourced, useful and notable. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:43, 31 May 2013 (UTC):[reply]
Keep, certainly applies on wikipedia!!♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 11:50, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails WP:NOTDICT. Just because it has sources doesn't mean it fits with the project's scope.—Ryulong (琉竜) 12:15, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The claim of "Not Dictionary" ignores the fact that this is a CONCEPT and an IDIOM. "Each article in an encyclopedia is about a person, a people, a concept, a place, an event, a thing etc., whereas a dictionary entry is primarily about a word, an idiom, or a term and its meanings, usage and history. In some cases, a word or phrase itself may be an encyclopedic subject, uch as Macedonia (terminology) or truthiness. "One perennial source of confusion is that a stub encyclopedia article looks very much like a stub dictionary entry, and stubs are often poorly written. Another perennial source of confusion is that some paper dictionaries, such as "pocket" dictionaries, lead editors to the mistaken belief that dictionary entries are short, and that short article and dictionary entry are therefore equivalent." 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:57, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (post) @ 13:37, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep per WP:SK. As noted above, this seems to be part of a bundle of nominations related to a geographical dispute and seems to have frivolous, irrelevant character contrary to WP:POINT, WP:HARASS and WP:DISRUPT. Warden (talk) 15:07, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. @Warden: you are incorrect, and you clearly need to read WP:AGF. Please base your argument on the merit of the article rather than a personal attack against motivations. These articles are clearly outside the realm of any territorial dispute. Ansei/Tenmei has created hundreds or thousands of articles; Ryulong and I have nominated only a handful ones that do not belong in an encyclopedia because they are idioms and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. You may wish to consider reading that article as well. Bueller 007 (talk) 16:16, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This AfD is part of a tag team event -- see here.
It is noteworthy that Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2013_May_31 includes so many articles in which the same writer invested time and research? --Tenmei (talk) 15:16, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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.(And on this one, doesn't anybody here have any sense of irony?) Acroterion (talk) 15:22, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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 Talk 16:52, 31 May 2013 (UTC)Sosthenes12[reply]
  • Snow Keep per WP:DEADHORSE 24.151.116.25 (talk) 17:03, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Sourced piece on a historic idiomatic expression of sufficient stature to support encyclopedic coverage. Passes GNG. Carrite (talk) 17:09, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is obviously more than a dictionary definition as others have pointed out. JayJayWhat did I do? 20:59, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Tossing this out would be like throwing the . . . . . ...... well, you get the idea, I'm sure. Carptrash (talk) 00:49, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Ironically, WP:BATHWATER may apply, doubly. We have some history, usage and adaptation to back up the definition, it may not be complete but deleting this at NOTDICT seems to be showing a lack of understand for the spirit of NOTDICT and WP:WORDISSUBJECT. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:24, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Noted expression and cemented in culture. It is obviously more than a dictionary definition as others have pointed out. It looks to me like a case of WP:OVERZEALOUS. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 13:04, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep One suspects an ulterior motive here, a somewhat impure nomination. In any case, this is not a DICDEF, as dictionaries deal in words and not in idiomatic expressions; we should. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:07, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This isn't just a dictionary definition, its a proper article. Dream Focus 12:42, 3 June 2013 (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/Throw_out_the_baby_with_the_bath_water&oldid=1138870676"