Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Best of both worlds (saying)
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 Delete. --Oxymoron83 07:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Best of both worlds (saying)[edit]
- Best of both worlds (saying) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
Mostly dictionary definition, does not meet notability requirements. Lea (talk) 21:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The fact that it has existed for almost four years in absolutely no way trumps Wikipedia is not a dictionary.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 22:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. There is no evidence that this article will ever accrue encyclopedic content. — Timwi (talk) 23:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per above. Achromatic (talk) 05:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Although the current version isn't very good, there are many worthwhile articles in Category:English idioms, and this belongs among them. The current text isn't so flawed as to make it irredeemable, and just about all of these things have historical and cultural resonances that mean they can be expanded. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There may be notable idioms, but it's not clear to me why this would be one of them. The article doesn't assert notability, let alone provide references to demonstrate it (tagged unreferenced since September 2006).
Also, right now the article is only a dictionary definition plus one example (plus cruft). I don't see off the top of my head what encyclopedic content could possibly be added (no history [AFAICS] or non-obvious derivation, no controversial usage, ...). -- Lea (talk) 22:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]- I totally agree with Lea. It's English language cruft. Not encyclopedic, completely appropriate for a dictionary.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 23:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There may be notable idioms, but it's not clear to me why this would be one of them. The article doesn't assert notability, let alone provide references to demonstrate it (tagged unreferenced since September 2006).
- Delete per nom. Doctorfluffy (talk) 04:03, 6 February 2008 (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.