Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe Shmoe


 * 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   keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:53, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Joe Shmoe

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This is an article about an unnotable, unreferenced fictional name that basically talks about the shm- prefix. Tavix (talk) 00:14, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. I'm not sure it's a keeper, though, because better than half, as the nom points out, talks about Shm-reduplication - so you remove that, and it just explains, in brief, what boils down to a metasyntactic name. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 03:37, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Could we perhaps turn this into a list of similar names around the world and redirect there or something? - Mgm|(talk) 11:54, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Already done at John Doe. Tavix (talk) 22:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. This article might help a non-native speaker of American English who encounters this name and does not realize its meaning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.81.93 (talk • contribs)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak keep--while I can find some linguistic stuff on Schmoe, I can't really find Joe. But see article for a few sources I added. Drmies (talk) 01:35, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Transwiki - Over to Wikitionary. By the way, they would welcome this phrase (No article yet).  It clearly is a Idiom, as shown here by Google Scholar .  If and when someone finds the time an patience to fully research and cite and expand, bring it back.  I do believe there may be an article here. ShoesssS Talk 02:30, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - Someone's added three references to the article. -Drilnoth (talk) 03:12, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, but that same someone (moi) took the liberty of restoring the unreferenced-tag you removed: my references only attest to the existence of the word and some of its semantic and especially phonological qualities. They have nothing to say about the real use of the phrase. Drmies (talk) 03:34, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - I truthfully believe that everyone realizes the phrase is Notable as a Idiom, including the nominator, and probably should have just transferred the piece over to Wikitionary at this point, given its present state.  That is what I recommend.  That way, none of the research, already done on the piece, is lost - Wiktionary gains a legitimate entry and the original author and or other editors still have the opportunity to expand on the article and bring it up to at least stub status and than institute a article back here.  Win-Win situation for all parties. ShoesssS Talk 03:46, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure, I don't have a problem with that. Drmies (talk) 04:10, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge to John Doe or Average Joe (with preference to the latter). I think it would be a good section in one of these articles.-- Lenticel ( talk ) 10:32, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep sufficient references for notability, and I think when less formal sources are  searched , there will be many more. Notable idioms are notable, and there's no reason to move it out of Wikipedia. DGG (talk) 03:59, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Not the greatest article, but supported by reliable and verifiable sources to establish notability. Alansohn (talk) 06:49, 5 December 2008 (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.