Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flogging a dead horse


 * 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   no consensus. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  ark  // 08:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Flogging a dead horse

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This is merely a dictionary entry that already exists in Wiktionary. Other than unnecessary verbosity, it offers absolutely nothing outside of standard dictionary fare: meaning, etymology, usage, and related phrases. Delete under WP:DICTIONARY. Bueller 007 (talk) 07:20, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete because Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Armbrust  Talk  Contribs  07:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete A5 C T J F 8 3  chat 07:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. WP:NAD. Daa89563 (talk) 07:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. We're not a dictionary.  I know that's a newsflash for some.  JBsupreme (talk) 07:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * We're not a dictionary and yet this article has been around for six years, most of Wikipedia's life. Common expressions are different than just words.    D r e a m Focus  21:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep The topic appears in numerous encyclopedias such as The Visual encyclopedia of nautical terms under sail and Oxford illustrated encyclopedia. Our article goes substantially beyond a dictionary entry and the article's title is not a word but a phrase. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:45, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong keep the wictionary version is a stub compared to this article. Very extensive history which just needs to be referenced. Ikip  02:21, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Beating a dead horse is a common expression, or used to be when I was younger. The article is not just a simple dictionary entry.  Also, almost no one ever uses the wiktionary, never has, and never will.   D r e a m Focus  05:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, because too many people have added common words and expressions to Wikipedia. We're trying to fix that.  Powers T 13:53, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not paper. WP:PAPER  There is no limit in space.  Those common expressions have been around for years now, as old as Wikipedia itself most likely.  This article was created on the 28th of September 2004.   D r e a m Focus  21:43, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not arguing on the grounds of lack of space. But even though we are not paper, we have inclusion criteria, because we don't want to be everything.  We only want to be an encyclopedia.  We don't want to be a dictionary or an idiom guide.  Powers T 23:09, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia is not a glossary of idioms.  Powers T 13:53, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Wikipedia is a repository of knowledge, including references to long-time usage of established idiom, and third party interpretations thereof. This (somewhat archaic) idiom is clearly more than a terse dicdef. Power.corrupts (talk) 20:27, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Dicdefs need not be terse. Powers T 23:09, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Definitions and usage examples belong in a dictionary, not an encyclopedia. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 21:46, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, substantial cultural and historical currency. Everyking (talk) 07:18, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, per Everyking -- Agathoclea (talk) 10:28, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Major idioms of this sort have enough usage and information about them to be notable, and with the possibility of far more information than Wiktionary will include.   DGG ( talk ) 03:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. This article is far more than a dictionary definition.  It goes into the history of the idiom itself, which is encyclopedic content. Specs112 (Talk!) 01:14, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article is much more than WP:DICDEF. The term has strong historical, cultural and social connections. WWGB (talk) 01:21, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 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.