Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catbird seat

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 of this debate was Keep. psch e mp | talk 06:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Catbird seat[edit]

This article has been transwikid to Wiktionary (Wiktionary:Transwiki:catbird seat) James084 13:20, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. More than a dicdef; name of a Thurber short story, for one. I had occasion to look this up not too long ago.-ikkyu2 (talk) 15:56, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Perhaps the article can be rewritten as an article about the Thurber short story mentioned above? James084 16:10, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- - What guideline is it violating the way it is? It provides more context than a dicdef, so that's not it. Is there some particular reason this useful article needs to be removed from Wikipedia? -ikkyu2 (talk) 16:33, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well there is Wikipedia is not a slang or idiom guide but maybe that does not apply any longer. Perhaps this discussion is misplaced and we should be discussing removing that line from Wikipedia's guidelines. James084 16:49, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- - I agree that you've cited consensus policy, which I would not desire to overturn; I'm not convinced that it applies to this article. -ikkyu2 (talk) 16:21, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Truthfully, I haven't figured out for what type of articles that the policy applies to and which it doesn't. I mean if the policy were consistently enforced then it would be easy to figure out when the policy describes an article and when it doesn't. But since there is a complete lack of consistency regarding policy here I just can't figure out when this policy applies to an article and when it doesn't. I guess I could stop figuring it out and stop bringing articles that I think may violate this policy here; however, it has almost become "academic curiosity" to see what the community does with an article. But I am beginning to think that it would be easier if Wikipedia policy were modifed to eliminate this particular policy. James084 21:05, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You may be interested to know that the entire Wiktionary exists simply because a lot of early Wikipedia users felt so strongly that dicdefs didn't belong here that they built an entire project (the Wiktionary project) just to keep dicdefs out of Wikipedia. No one felt it was important to create a free dictionary that anyone could edit. WRT this article, "Catbird seat" might be in a dictionary, but it seems to me that the current article is more than a dicdef, and can in the future be expanded to cover the Thurber story in more detail. -ikkyu2 (talk) 21:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Great article. I had no idea where this came from, but this does an excellent job of explaining the term. -- JJay 20:42, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Add some more detailed ref to the Thurber story. KWH 10:58, 4 March 2006 (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.