Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Takes two to tango (idiom)
- 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]
- Takes two to tango (idiom) (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)
WP:NOTDICT Bueller 007 (talk) 09:07, 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 (message) @ 13:36, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- 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) 15:03, 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) 15:21, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It does indeed have to do with dictionary definitions. The fact that they were all authored by the same user is irrelevant.—Ryulong (琉竜) 15:24, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I feel the same way about this article as I do for the one on flogging a dead horse. It's more than just a dictionary definition, including history. I think it should stay. —Σosthenes12 Talk 16:48, 31 May 2013 (UTC)Sosthenes12[reply]
- Snow Keep per WP:DEADHORSE 24.151.116.25 (talk) 17:02, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:DEADHORSE is a personal opinion essay rather than a guideline or policy and thus doesn't have determinative power at AfD. Carrite (talk) 17:06, 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]
- Snow Keep for all the foregoing reasons. Historic idiomatic expression of sufficient stature to support encyclopedic coverage. No doubt the Doubting Thomases will be moving next month to redelete this. This is a case of spinning our wheels. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:32, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It is obviously more than a dictionary definition as others have pointed out. JayJayWhat did I do? 20:58, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Detailed origin and popular usage stemming from Nixon; exactly the kind of information you'd expect at Wikipedia. It is not just a dictionary definition; and its more than a mere 1 liner on etymology. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:08, 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) 13:13, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep -per ChrisG. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:04, 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.