Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sutor, ne ultra crepidam


 * 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 per the consensus of everyone. Mandsford 01:15, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Sutor, ne ultra crepidam

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Looks like a dictionary entry to me, I think that it should be transwikied over to Wiktionary. Bobby122  Contact Me   (C)  04:43, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Gives the history of the expression, which seems to be in itself notable. Not a dictionary is usually not enforced so strictly to exclude this kind of article.  There are many articles on proverbs, etc. here.Wolfview (talk) 05:13, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep (biased - I contibuted it). By all means transwiki Ultracrepidarianism which is undeniably sort of like a dictionary entry but not this famous remark of Apelles recorded by Pliny. As Wolfview remarks there are numerous proverbs and sayings in Wikipedia and it would be much the poorer without these. For example the splendid Habent sua fata libelli which I've just expanded and note that Libellus itself has an entry. Rinpoche (talk) 05:37, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * incidentally Sutor, ne ultra crepidam isn't recorded in the 20 volume or so Oxford English Dictionary (2nd ed.) which should be a pretty exacting test of whether something is sort of like a dictionary entry Rinpoche (talk) 05:44, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * plus another thing Wikipeida does have a category 'Category:Latin words and phrases' which is what it most sort of looks like to me all things considered (for example 1 it's a phrase 2 it's Latin) which you have to admit is pretty much a reductio ad absurdam (whatever) though that one admittedly is in the OED which is just an Exception that proves the rule and nothing personal honest. Rinpoche (talk) 06:00, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Can I ask for some remarks from Bobby122 clarifying why he/she sort of marked this for deletion (that would be courteous) so we get some consensus here and move on? I am frankly at a loss to understand why it's been marked like this (and that if you please within minutes of it going up like totally predatory or what) and I do feel he/she should sort of explain himself/herself. Rinpoche (talk) 12:41, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I placed it here not for it to be deleted, but to get others opinions on whether it should be transwikied or no because it was a close call for me. I had no intention of it being deleted. Also I don't understand your remark about being predatory. Bobby122   Contact Me   (C)  14:05, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If you merely wanted to get opinion you could have done that by discussing it on the article's talk page or by adding a notability template. Of course this page should be reserved for articles you want deleted if you are not to waste our time. With respect there's no close call involved. It's a celebrated and notable Latin phrase, one of the great put-downs of history, and it absolutely belongs to one of the established Wikipedia categories. I took the time to contribute it because I quoted it in a teasing reply to a blog by Harry Mount, a classics scholar, in the UK newspaper The Daily Telegraph and noticed then that it didn't have an entry. If you had sort of read the article instead of merely sort of like looking at it you would have noticed that indeed there is an issue with Ultracrepidarianism which arguably should be in the Wiktionary. On my talk page you comment: "I'm a new page patroller who looked at the article and thought it looked like a dictionary entry so I submitted it to AFD to get a consensus on whether or not it should be transwikied. There I saw the reasons why the article should by kept at the English Wikipedia". Can we assume now then that you agree the article should be kept and that I may now remove the template you have disfigured the article I spent an hour or so of my time selflessly contributing?


 * You are surely being disingenuous (if you are not to be accused of being actually stupid) when you say you don't understand my predator remark? What I sought to suggest if it really is not clear to you is that this was a case of some self-appointed Wiki zealot overstepping his authority. I gather the exalted role of new page patroller is indeed a voluntary self-appointed one and I do commend you to your lonely work but ask only that you reflect on your task more carefully in future if you are not to continue to waste our time and efforts.


 * To aid you in your further notable efforts I note for you that a good test of whether an article should sort of be in the Wikitionary is that it offers several definitions of its title. Hope that helps.


 * Unless I further hear sensibly from you or others over the next few hours I shall assume consensus is reached and remove the template. I hope and trust the community will accept that as a satisfactory resolution. Rinpoche (talk) 18:17, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I really wouldn't recommend that. Assume good faith, leave the template and allow the AfD to run its course. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 19:00, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * OK. Accept your advice. Rinpoche (talk) 19:43, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 19:00, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  --  Jujutacular  talk 15:27, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Based on the reasons given I switch my vote to keep. It is notable enough for an article entry. Bobby122   Contact Me   (C)  11:44, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Quite a significant phrase and notability shown. Let justice be done though the fuckin heavens fall. Donald Schroeder JWH018 (talk) 20:08, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Notable, significant. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:48, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep famous phrase, and appropriate for an encyclopedia . Might be appropriate for a dictionary also, but in general they do not consider phrases within their scope, though some give phrases like this in an appendix.    DGG ( talk ) 07:50, 15 September 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.