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.
Keep. From
Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary: "Wikipedia is not in the business of saying how words, idioms, phrases etc., should be used (but it may be important in the context of an encyclopedia article to discuss how a word is used.) This article discusses how the idiom is used, not how it should be used.
Pianotech21:49, 10 July 2010 (UTC)reply
The context referred to isn't the dictionary item itself. The 'but' means: if an article about some event mentions that the phrase was used, it ought to be explained. So, do we have two or more articles that need to refer to such an explanation? —
Tamfang (
talk)
19:23, 16 July 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete My understanding to the "not a dictionary" policy would exclude articles explaining the meaning of words or phrases. Exceptions are made when there is some interesting history to report, although even then perhaps they should not be. In this case there is nothing more than an explanation of the meaning of this expression. Wiktionary is there for these.
Wolfview (
talk)
22:47, 10 July 2010 (UTC)reply
Comment First edit by a new contributor, and welcome to AfD. We have had cases where things like this have survived, such as with
Don't Count Your Chickens Before They Hatch, but usually not without sourcing. The Wiktionary entry isn't that great either (they say that this is a verb, making it the longest verb I've ever seen). I can't see a keep, but I enjoyed the G version ("act on it rather than just talk about it") and the PG version ("mean what they propose to do rather than just bullshit about it"). Don't worry about it if it gets deleted, that's happened to all of us.
Mandsford15:02, 11 July 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete. Out of scope. I'm a little troubled, though, that "non-dictionary coverage" might convince some people to keep an article on this topic.
PowersT20:00, 18 July 2010 (UTC)reply
Weak delete - unlike some other phrases, I am not assured that a full article could be created. I have found some decent sources, see
here, but even those may not be enough.
Bearian (
talk)
19:58, 19 July 2010 (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.