Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Idiom dictionary
- 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 keep. While in need of clean up, references, etc, etc, the article's concept "is notable, verifiable, and possible to describe without original research." (non-admin closure) Theopolisme 11:34, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Idiom dictionary[edit]
- Idiom dictionary (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)
The article does not belong in an encyclopedia. It has no sourced content. It starts with a definition of the word idiom but Wikipedia is not a dictionary. What passes for citations are just definitions of words on Wiktionary, like word, verb, and aim, and the numerous internal Wikipedia links have nothing to do with the content of this article, things like district, profession, medicine, etc.
It is full of strong unilateral unsourced statements, such as "These two aims reflect the fact that such a dictionary is rather a lexicon than a simple dictionary...", "A reference book of this kind is destined to provide a complementary tool for student’s studies." and "Both categories of reader need this invaluable linguistic resource..." --- Vroo (talk) 19:14, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 August 28. Snotbot t • c » 19:42, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The prose is meandering, the content confused, formatting and internal linking is inappropriate, and the article cites no sources. These are real problems, but problems in need of clean-up, not deletion. The concept which the article should cover (and which, say five years ago, it sort of did) is notable, verifiable, and possible to describe without original research. Cnilep (talk) 02:58, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I agree with Cnilep - AfD is not for cleanup. I tried searching Google Books for sources about this just now, and it was more of a problem of knowing where to start than there being a lack of material available. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 16:43, 29 August 2012 (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.