This discussion was subject to a
deletion review on 2009 May 2. For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review. |
The result was delete. BJ Talk 05:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC) reply
Per
NOTDIC
The New
Mikemoral
♪♫ 02:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
::Note to admin - nominator has withdrawn (see below)
pablo
hablo. 22:57, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
reply
So, we have a bunch of claims that there is more than a dictionary definition and well-referenced, both of which are very misguided. As this is an encyclopedia and not a dictionary, finding someone using the word in a sentence in a completely unrelated self-published memoir or book about friendship is not a proper reference. I can find all of the words in this sentence used in in books and quote them, but that doesn't make an encyclopedia article. Nor does a term's listing in dictionaries of slang establish a word's encyclopedic notability; all slang words can be expected to be found there. What do we have when we take away the etymology, definition, and quotations—all of which a dictionary does? Well, nothing, because we aren't actually talking about red cunt hairs here, or units of measurement, we are talking about an English-language phrase itself, as if it were an encyclopedic subject. I suppose nickel and dime is a "notional" unit of currency now, worth of an article?. Dominic· t 04:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC) reply
Delete (as already exists on Wiktionary),despite thoroughly endorsing articles on matters other sources may omit. Hair generally (as a unit of measurement or in colloquial speech) may have a prospect for an encyclopedic article, but despite the previous AFD, this one is basically just a DICK DEF (sorry, I just had to!). I don't see much prospect of an article on this specific expression beyond typical dictionary material, such as 1) that it's slang for a very small amount, 2) the etymology of the expression, 3) some example sources of usage. This is exactly what we have, in terser style, in Wiktionary.
If an editor can improve this article to say more on the term than a dictionary entry might, then keep, but at present and despite last AFD, the article doesn't seem to have good prospects of that. FT2 ( Talk | email) 14:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC) reply
This discussion was subject to a
deletion review on 2009 May 2. For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review. |
The result was delete. BJ Talk 05:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC) reply
Per
NOTDIC
The New
Mikemoral
♪♫ 02:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
::Note to admin - nominator has withdrawn (see below)
pablo
hablo. 22:57, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
reply
So, we have a bunch of claims that there is more than a dictionary definition and well-referenced, both of which are very misguided. As this is an encyclopedia and not a dictionary, finding someone using the word in a sentence in a completely unrelated self-published memoir or book about friendship is not a proper reference. I can find all of the words in this sentence used in in books and quote them, but that doesn't make an encyclopedia article. Nor does a term's listing in dictionaries of slang establish a word's encyclopedic notability; all slang words can be expected to be found there. What do we have when we take away the etymology, definition, and quotations—all of which a dictionary does? Well, nothing, because we aren't actually talking about red cunt hairs here, or units of measurement, we are talking about an English-language phrase itself, as if it were an encyclopedic subject. I suppose nickel and dime is a "notional" unit of currency now, worth of an article?. Dominic· t 04:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC) reply
Delete (as already exists on Wiktionary),despite thoroughly endorsing articles on matters other sources may omit. Hair generally (as a unit of measurement or in colloquial speech) may have a prospect for an encyclopedic article, but despite the previous AFD, this one is basically just a DICK DEF (sorry, I just had to!). I don't see much prospect of an article on this specific expression beyond typical dictionary material, such as 1) that it's slang for a very small amount, 2) the etymology of the expression, 3) some example sources of usage. This is exactly what we have, in terser style, in Wiktionary.
If an editor can improve this article to say more on the term than a dictionary entry might, then keep, but at present and despite last AFD, the article doesn't seem to have good prospects of that. FT2 ( Talk | email) 14:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC) reply