Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Square peg in a round hole

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 15:07, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Square peg in a round hole

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Definition, etymology and usage. This is a dictionary entry. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Belongs on Wiktionary. Bueller 007 (talk) 09:13, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:NOTDICT.—Ryulong (琉竜) 12:15, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (lecture) @ 13:36, 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) 15:02, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per WP:SK. These nominations seem to relate to a geographical dispute and seem to have frivolous, irrelevant character contrary to WP:POINT, WP:HARASS and WP:DISRUPT. Warden (talk) 15:05, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This has nothing to do with any "geographical dispute". It is true that both Bueller 007 and I found these articles in Tenmei's edit history (Tenmei stick to one damn account, Ansei or this one) but we are not working in unison and it has nothing to do with the articles that Tenmei/Ansei is banned from. They do, however, have to do with the fact that Tenmei/Ansei has a habit of creating these badly written dictionary definition pages and using them in his arguments.—Ryulong (琉竜) 15:21, 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. Bueller 007 (talk) 16:13, 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) 15:20, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a "pointy set of inappropriate AFD nominations". I found that Tenmei/Ansei had written a handful of these articles that are just definitions of idioms and Bueller 007 apparently did the same after realizing what I had done.—Ryulong (琉竜) 15:23, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. Anyone could clearly tell that these have nothing to do with a territorial dispute. Bueller 007 (talk) 16:15, 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 16:52, 31 May 2013 (UTC)Sosthenes12[reply]
Snow Keep per WP:DEADHORSE 24.151.116.25 (talk) 17:02, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Historic idiomatic expression of sufficient stature to support encyclopedic coverage. Carrite (talk) 17:04, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for foregoing reasons. Well above whatever threshold we're talking about here. Way more than mere definition. Could the article be improved? Yes, but this is not an all or nothing proposition. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:23, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is obviously more than a dictionary definition as others have pointed out. JayJay^{What did I do?} 20:58, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There is movement to modify NOTDICT because the difference in focus from wiktionary. The article may not be perfect, but it goes beyond a mere definition. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:04, 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) 13:25, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - More than a DICDEF. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:03, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This isn't just a dictionary definition, its a proper article. Dream Focus 12:43, 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.