Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of idioms in the English language


 * 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 Delete All. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

List of idioms in the English language


This afd found that there is strong consensus that lists of idioms violate WP:WINAD. Additional concerns are that they are unsourced, and that there are problems sourcing them and that they contain original research. The only defence put up was the non-argument that these lists are useful. Also nominated are the lists of idioms for the letters R through Z inclusive (V was never created) and the page to which all the lists were transcluded. These were recently copied to Wiktionary. MER-C 04:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep This is very useful, and not something found in a dictionary. True any individual phrase isn't worthy of an entry, but the lists are. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 05:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * We've already had this debate. This stuff can be found in our' dictionary, Wiktionary at wikt:Category:Idioms. And there is a clear precedent that this stuff doesn't belong here. MER-C 05:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. Again, I will say this - idioms are encyclopedic material. These lists should not be deleted. Almost all the information in these articles CAN be sourced. --- RockMFR 05:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * No they're not, see Articles for deletion/List of idioms in the English language (A) and WP:WINAD. Not every phrase mentioned is an idiom, too, so there's a lot of sourcing to be done. MER-C 05:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * How can you refute my argument with an Afd discussion in which I also voted keep? I disagree with the precedent that was set. Precedent is not always correct, especially if there is not strong consensus. --- RockMFR 06:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom and per precedence Copysan 05:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete: Again, usefulness is not a criteria for keeping, and all the previous parts were deleted with consensus, no point in saving the tail end of a list that was entirely deleted because it was hopelessly unverifiable, OR, and unencyclopedic. Wintermut3 06:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep all, very useful and encyclopedic lists. J I P  | Talk 06:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per precedence Peregrine AY 06:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, as they've already been transwickied, and they're more appropriate there, they can be deleted here. SkierRMH, 06:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, per WP:NOT, specifically Wikipedia is not a dictionary, not an indiscriminate collection of information. Also WP:V as unverifiable, and WP:OR as possible original research.  No references, and no hope for expansion even if refs are found.  No objection to a transwiki move to wiktionary.  --Jayron 32  07:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Fascinating, but let the Wiktionary have it. --Brianyoumans 07:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Already transwikied to Wiktionary. utcursch | talk 08:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Move to Wiktionary. Sander123 10:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Verify everything is properly transwikified, then delete. - Mgm|(talk) 13:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, WP:NOT a dictionary. Ter e nce Ong 14:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per precedent. Punkmorten 15:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per the above cited precedent. Now that the list for idioms beginning with A has been deleted, it would be a mistake to keep others.  Wikipedia is not a dictionary, that's why we have the Wiktionary and just because something is useful does not mean it deserves an article here.  How-to guides are also useful but we routinely delete them, for example.  --The Way 15:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete All per nom, per above "delete" reasons, and per reasons given in the AfD for the deleted "(A)" list. Problems of original research remain, and it is matter of argument whether or not all the examples in all the lists are idioms. Agent 86 20:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete all Per nom. These interesting and useful items of original research can be viewed elsewhere. Edison 20:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Fascinating, but let the Wiktionary have it.--johno95 20:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per last time, and let's not play this game with multiple AfDs again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vectro (talk • contribs)
 * Keep - Bisected8 21:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * AfD is not a vote; hence you need to explain your input. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 00:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per precident with (A) and WP:NOT. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 00:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete There is no use for the list of idioms in Wikipedia. Besides, a list of all of them is in Wiktionary.--PrestonH 06:18, 9 December 2006 (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.