Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Salad days (3rd nomination)

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]

Salad days[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Salad days (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)

Previously nominated twice for deletion. Arguments in favour of keeping the article are very poor, in my opinion. This article is just a dictionary definition, a handful usage examples (as would be found in a dictionary), and some cultural references. This fails WP:NOTDICT. Really, what is needed is to redirect Salad days to Salad Days, and add a single line at the top of Salad Days explaining what the phrase means. Bueller 007 (talk) 08:56, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (deliver) @ 13:36, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep The nominator proposes redirection which is not achieved by deletion. See WP:SK, "proposing a non-deletion action such as moving or merging". The page was give a clear Keep just a year ago and the nomination brings forward no new evidence. This seems to be disruption per WP:DEL, "It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hopes of getting a different outcome." Warden (talk) 14:30, 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. In addition, it is a joke to call this "disruption". My last call for deletion was over three years ago. 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) 15:06, 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. Acroterion (talk) 15:21, 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 16:50, 31 May 2013 (UTC)Sosthenes12[reply]
  • Snow Keep per WP:DEADHORSE 24.151.116.25 (talk) 17:03, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow Keep Obviously more than a definition. One more ill-conceived and not supported request for deletion. Opposing this is One small step for man and one large step for Wikipedia. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:40, 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 - Noted expression and cemented in culture; while it is not the best article it is not a mere definition. When the Queen referred to the line in her Silver Jubilee; it was interesting, but more so because that line with that term as endured as the closing line to that speech and the most remarkable fragment of it. The quote (which is not cited at this moment) is found in books like Fifty Years the Queen: A Tribute to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II on Her Golden Jubilee and other places; even viewable on Google Book searches. The article may have its flaws, but this is far more than a dictionary definition. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:16, 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) 13:11, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -Two previous failed noms should tell the nominator something. Per Doug C. and others above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:05, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This isn't just a dictionary definition, its a proper article, complete with references from reliable sources. Dream Focus 12:44, 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/Salad_days_(3rd_nomination)&oldid=1138334404"