Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Salad days (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   keep. The discussion here really just serves to illustrate that this type of article does exist on the borderline between the function of a dictionary and an encyclopedia. Ultimately, the prevailing opinion seems to be that it's more useful to include an article that's just on the edge of Wikipedia's scope than it is to delete it - particularly when the article is as innocuous as this one. ~ mazca  talk 13:12, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Salad days
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

Despite numerous claims in the previous AfD that this article could be expanded or improved, no such expansion or improvement is visible. The article consists entirely of definition and usage. There is nothing to be said about it that can't just as easily be said in the Wiktionary article. Please don't just repeat: "Keep and expand" or "Keep; it could be improved", but rather please explain what, exactly, could be added to this article to make it encyclopedic. Powers T 19:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete since it is a dictionary definition of a phrase already in Wiktionary. Edison (talk) 20:09, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep The previous discussion closed as a consensus to Keep and, in that previous discussion, there was no pressing need for improvement - I myself was reasonably content with the current state of the article. The nomination is therefore an annoying attempt to undo the previous discussion per WP:NOTAGAIN and WP:NOEFFORT.  The phrase is from Shakespeare - an author who is of such standing that all his works are notable and that includes Shakespearean phrases.  If we were to develop the topic beyond its current state then it would be to generalise it as youthful naïveté or youthful inexperience but it is not clear what we already have covering this topic.  Our editing policy is to retain such worthwhile material for further work in the fullness of time.  As for Wiktionary that is a rival project of no great merit.  When one googles for "salad days", then it is our article here which is the number one hit while the wiktionary equivalent is way down the list.  We should reinforce success not failure. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:56, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Wiktionary is a sister project; it is not our place to usurp its remit just because you perceive it to be less successful. If "we should reinforce success not failure", then the Foundation ought to drop every project except Commons and a few Wikipedias.  Powers T 12:30, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Through a cursory look through Google book search (note: try ' "Salad Days" phrase', or ' "Salad days" etymology' as search terms for a better scope) I've noticed a few sources discussing the history of the phrase in question. This would presumptively satisfy the notability guidelines for inclusion in this project. Colonel Warden is correct when he says we should presumptively regard shakespearean phrases, especially phrases where other works have discussed their meaning and usage, as notable. riffic (talk) 16:04, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Notability is not our only inclusion criterion, and nowhere in my nomination did I suggest that this phrase was unnotable. However, content must also be encyclopedic; in this case, the content here is not encyclopedic in the slightest.  There is a severe misunderstanding on this project of the differing domains of "dictionaries" and "encyclopedias", and there seems to be a strong movement toward making Wikipedia a comprehensive reference work instead of just an encyclopedia.  But our founding principles are clear: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and we can't include articles on every little two-word phrase that Shakespeare bothered to coin.  Powers T 19:26, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Part of the nomination argument reminds me of article content deletors arguing that content belongs in An article that does not exist (which common event is the real backstory to the scenario proposed in POVFORK), as there is no way that this article's content can be included in Wiktionary.
 * I agree with User:Xyzzyplugh/Articles about words (previously WP:Articles about words). WP:DICT does not relate directly to this issue, and this issue is not covered by a WP rule with consensus; Deletors believe that articles about words do not belong on Wikipedia; Keepers believe they do. Decisions are made, over and over, without consensus, according to the preponderance of Eventualists or Immediatists in the discussion. There is no objective standard within DICT for articles about words specifically, and the removal from mainspace of WP:Articles about words itself in 2007 was a bulldozing attempt to bury not only the debate, but the best evidence that a debate is essential. The responsible thing to do is to close No Consensus, as the definitive policy is in doubt, and begin a debate on this issue once and for all. Anarchangel (talk) 00:32, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Believe me, I've tried, but no consensus has been forthcoming. Contrary to the simplistic view you describe, I don't object to all articles about words.  But I do object to articles about all words.  =)  Just because some words and phrases have been studied in depth and have had a notable impact upon society and can have good encyclopedia articles written about them doesn't mean that all words and phrases can.  A comprehensive dictionary should be covering everything that is currently in this "encyclopedia" article; if Wiktionary doesn't, that's not our problem.  (In a dictionary, it would be written somewhat differently, of course.)  "Salad days" is a notable Shakespearean phrase, but really -- aside from defining it, and listing where it's been used, what is there to say about it?  No one has yet answered that question.  Instead we get mere assertions that "It's notable because people have written about it!"  Powers T 12:15, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - an expansion can be made. if that is the only main issue then I dont see any reason for deletion. Also per Colonel Warden.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:47, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Please describe what expansion you think is possible. There's nothing more to say about this phrase than what's already here.  Powers T 12:39, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete and Transwiki. Belongs on Wiktionary. I can find dissertations about the etymology of practically any given English word and phrase, this does not automatically merit an encyclopedia article. I can find mathematical proofs for 2+3=5, 2+4=6, 2+5=7, ad infinitum - this does not make these equations meriting of an encyclopedia article. Arguments along the lines that "it can be expanded" fall especially flat given the fact that it hasn't been expanded since the last time these tired old canards were trotted out. Badger Drink (talk) 19:26, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Rescue and Keep based on WP:OUTCOMES - see Articles for deletion/Sisu, Articles for deletion/Sisu (2nd nomination), Articles for deletion/Velleity and Articles for deletion/Chaos. Core concepts and well--attested idioms are kept, rather than deleted or sent to WikiSiberia. Bearian (talk) 20:34, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Please describe what kind of "rescue" is possible. No one has yet done that.  Powers T 02:22, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Much more than just a definition. I just added a scholarly reference to the article, as well as a half-dozen examples of the use of the phrase in book titles. --MelanieN (talk) 03:28, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Examples of use are part of a dictionary entry. I never said it was "just a definition".  Powers T 12:11, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep, please. English is not my mother tongue. When I first saw the expression in Shakespeare I googled it immediately and this page had the only clear explanation of its origin and contextualized usage. Isn't this exactly what an encyclopaedia is supposed to be? --von Tamm (talk) 03:39, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No, that's what a dictionary is for. Powers T 12:11, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Q=Phrases about which there is substantial secondary discussion--as there certainly is here--are appropriate for coverage in Wikipedia. There is a certain degree of overlap between the function of a dictionary and an encyclopedia, and, if the matter goes beyond a definition and etymology into an explanation of the possibly derivations for a very significant expression, I think it can   be included here.     DGG ( talk ) 04:24, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Possible derivations are part of etymology, not "beyond" it. Powers T 12:11, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Had this same discussion last year at the first AFD for this article. This is a notable expression, and the article shows the history of where it came from, various places it was used, such as in Shakespeare, and other information that makes it more than a simple definition.   D r e a m Focus  12:24, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It's like talking to a brick wall. I never said it was a simple definition.  History and usage are properly part of a dictionary entry!  They can go in an encyclopedia, but only if there's other information that is encyclopedic in nature.  No one has yet -- despite multiple requests -- provided a single example of additional information that is encyclopedic and could be added to this article.  NO ONE!  Will you be the first?  Powers T 12:33, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually I was the first. I added a scholarly reference to the article. BTW do you really feel obliged, as nominator, to respond to every single comment here by repeating your rationale for deletion? --MelanieN (talk) 17:09, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Normally, I abhor doing so, but when I specifically asked for suggestions of what could be added, and that request was ignored... Powers T 17:17, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Not to mention the fact that several comments were misrepresenting my deletion rationale, and needed correction. Powers T 17:18, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete: analogous to WP:NOTDICTIONARY, Wikipedia is not a database of figures of speech. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 19:09, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - the article as currently written is not merely "definition and usage" so the nominator's one substantive argument for deletion (based on WP:NOT) is no longer pertinent. Thparkth (talk) 00:50, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: it is hard to see how a definition, history & usage differs from a dictionary definition one might see in a reasonably comprehensive dictionary (e.g. the OED -- which likewise includes the Shakespeare quote in its listing). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:36, 5 May 2011 (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.