Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flogging a dead horse (2nd nomination)


 * 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 closed as Keep. bd2412 T 15:24, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Flogging a dead horse
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I nominated this years ago, but the result was 'no consensus'. As the entry merely gives meaning, etymology and a synonymous phrase, this is a clear delete under WP:NOTDICT. Belongs on Wiktionary, not here. Bueller 007 (talk) 09:20, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't delete. Plausible search terms shouldn't be redlinks.  If it belongs on Wiktionary then it should be a soft redirect to Wiktionary.— S Marshall  T/C 11:14, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete: Fails WP:NOTDICT.— Ryulong ( 琉竜 ) 12:15, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Sir  Rcsprinter,  Bt  (warn)  @ 13:35, 31 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep The Wiktionary entry is a miniscule stub which is no substitute for this. As I understand it, that's their policy — they don't like expansive, encyclopedic entries.  The consequence is that, if you google the phrase, our article is the #1 hit while the Wikitionary entry is a long way down the list at about #38.  When it comes to horses, we should back winners, not losers. Warden (talk) 14:23, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: This AfD is part of a tag team event -- see here.


 * WP:AfD/Square peg in a round hole
 * WP:AfD/Takes two to tango (idiom)
 * WP:AfD/Salad days (3rd nomination)
 * WP:AfD/Barking up the wrong tree
 * WP:AfD/Throw out the baby with the bathwater


 * WP:AfDTalking past each other
 * WP:AfD/Make a mountain out of a molehill (3rd nomination)
 * WP:AfD/Gosei (Japanese diaspora)
 * WP:AfD/Teach fish how to swim
 * WP:AfD/Delegitimization
 * WP:AfD/Learning the hard way


 * It is noteworthy that Articles_for_deletion/Log/2013_May_31 includes so many articles in which the same writer invested time and research? --Tenmei (talk) 14:57, 31 May 2013 (UTC)


 * The real dispute between users such as Ryulong and Ansei, seems to be a matter of geography — something about the Ryukyu Islands. These nominations therefore seem to be a case of WP:POINT and WP:HARASS. Warden (talk) 14:49, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * There is no such dispute. Tenmei/Ansei is banned from various pages on Japanese history, politics, and geography and I have had no dispute with him prior. I merely found that he may be violating one of his multiple arbitration committee bans and that's what happened in the past couple of days. Do not assume that just because I raised the issue that his widely construed ban should be defined more that he and I are ind ispute and this is a violation of WP:POINT or WP:HARASS. You have no assumption of good faith here and neither does Tenmei/Ansei/whatever account he chooses next.— Ryulong ( 琉竜 ) 15:41, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 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) 16:11, 31 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. Notable as a phrase and as a concept, there's considerably more than a dictionary definition here, especially since it goes beyond this phrase to the concept.  --Arxiloxos (talk) 14:32, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * If you want an article on the concept it should be titled something like: "Wasting one's time and effort on a hopeless cause." -Borock (talk) 15:54, 31 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep This isn't a dictionary definition, and is clearly outside Wiktionary's scope and within Wikipedia's scope.  Acroterion   (talk)   15:18, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * DELETE ALL PER WP:NOTADICTIONARY :-)  -Borock (talk) 15:41, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Which says: "Each article in an encyclopedia is about a person, a people, a concept, a place, an event, a thing etc., whereas a dictionary entry is primarily about a word, an idiom, or a term and its meanings, usage and history." -Borock (talk) 15:52, 31 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep for reasons others have already stated. Ohwrotcod (talk) 16:09, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment The real dead horse is WP:NOTADICTIONARY. -Borock (talk) 16:11, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Agree with above. &mdash; Σosthenes 12  Talk  16:44, 31 May 2013 (UTC)Sosthenes12
 * Keep per WP:DEADHORSE...  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 16:45, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * (ec) Ha ha! You funny!!! Carrite (talk) 16:59, 31 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - Piece is about a historic expression and it goes well beyond a Dictionary definition. Carrite (talk) 16:59, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Please see: Village pump (policy)-Borock (talk) 16:57, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Snow Keep per WP:DEADHORSE 24.151.116.25 (talk) 17:01, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Snow Keep. Nothing has changed from the last time deletion was considered. It still should be kept, and not deleted. It is not in the dictionary.  It is a concept, not just a phrase.  It is well documented and well sourced.  It is a lucid discussion of an important concept — which would seem to include the current effort to revisit a closed question.  The claim of "Not Dictionary" ignores the fact that this is a CONCEPT and an IDIOM.  "Each article in an encyclopedia is about a person, a people, a concept, a place, an event, a thing etc., whereas a dictionary entry is primarily about a word, an idiom, or a term and its meanings, usage and history. In some cases, a word or phrase itself may be an encyclopedic subjecthttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Make_a_mountain_out_of_a_molehill_(3rd_nomination)&action=edit&section=1#, uch as Macedonia (terminology) or truthiness.  "One perennial source of confusion is that a stub encyclopedia article looks very much like a stub dictionary entry, and stubs are often poorly written. Another perennial source of confusion is that some paper dictionaries, such as "pocket" dictionaries, lead editors to the mistaken belief that dictionary entries are short, and that short article and dictionary entry are therefore equivalent."  One could quibble with the motives of the moving editors, but it is irrelevant and I will WP:AGF for now.  In any event, it does not change the merits of the discussion, and this is an obvious keeper to all but the few who will not be convinced otherwise.  7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 17:04, 31 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep It is obviously more than a dictionary definition as others have pointed out.  Jay  Jay What did I do? 20:58, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - Has had numerous mentions on shows like "Says You" on NPR and many people use the etymology and description here as cites to first publication. Besides, its a rather well-known idiom which can be sourced easier if so many people weren't using the expression. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:01, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 *  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) 13:29, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep per Colonel Warden Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:02, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - I don't see anything on the page that violates WP:NOTDICT. There are no issues that I would consider requiring a fundamental re-write; this is more than a simple Wikitionary-like entry. hmssolent \You rang? ship's log 08:27, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep This is an article, not just a short dictionary definition of the expression.  D r e a m Focus  12:41, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep A sound article.-- Auric    talk  14:51, 3 June 2013 (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.