Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Take it one step at a time


 * 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. There's consensus here that the article as it stands is untenable, and those favouring retention have not shown that the subject of the article is a discrete encyclopaedic topic nor that it is in itself notable. Should the article be needed for userspace development or transwiki'ing, please feel free to request temporary restoration at WP:UND or at my talkpage. Skomorokh 16:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Take it one step at a time

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

Wikipedia isn't an advice column for the likes of "Look before you leap" or "No use crying over spilt milk". This is probably not fodder for an encyclopedic article. —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep- Umm... I'm pretty sure that there's no such policy you appear to have made that 'policy' up from whole cloth. In any case, the article is not an advice column in any way; this is a perfectly standard time management term; there are entire books written about this, and the article has plenty of scope to become a well-rounded article over time; and that is all that is needed to survive an AFD.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 19:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I haven't made up any "policy". I'm observing that a piece of advice is not a thing you can write an encyclopedic article about. I understand that the concept of time management is sensibly mentioned in other articles. To take a similar example, doctors typically advise patients to give up smoking. A smoking article exists, and it discusses the negative findings about the effects of smoking on health. That's all well and good but it doesn't justify a Wikipedia article with the title "You should give up smoking". —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * There's no rule against that either; and there are situations where that's completely legitimate. You're supposed to be arguing from policies, not making up your own.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 19:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * There also is no policy that reads, "Thou Shalt Not Write An Article Entitled 'I Had A Dream About A Cat Last Night'" but that doesn't mean you ought to write an article called "I Had A Dream About A Cat Last Night". Articles are about topics. "Take it one step at a time" isn't a topic. A book may tell you, as part of your time management strategy, to take it one step at a time. It won't tell you anything about "take it one step at a time". It won't say "take-it-one-step-at-a-time was invented in 1846. The first public appearance of take-it-one-step-at-a-time was in Warsaw in 1857. Take-it-one-step-at-a-time is most often found in institutes of higher education. In 2003 there was a shortage of take-it-one-step-at-a-time in the southwestern United States but the supply has been replenished." —Largo Plazo (talk) 04:06, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I know you're just trying to be insulting and derogatory but an article about a dream you had last night would fail a whole host of policies; including WP:OR. If this kind of bad faith commentary is the best you can come up with, the rest of us here will be talking about wikipedian policies, which is what this review is supposed to be about.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 10:44, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * There is actually a category of phrases: Category:Phrases and it is quite well populated.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 10:44, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, the wikipedia already has 4 articles on this topic. If this article survives the AFD, then I can merge them to this one place, in accordance with WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 11:03, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete I could not find the phrase "One step at a time" in any of the three references in the article. Seems like a dictionary definition and original research, as well as a short essay. The articles about "sayings" which are linked also might belong at AFD. Wikipedia is not a collection of jokes or sayings. The Keep vote above by the article creator should be noted as such, not that there's anything wrong with wanting to keep the article you created. Edison (talk) 19:39, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No, no. Look, a dictionary definition defines one word or phrase multiple ways; it's based on a lexical topic; the word(s). An encyclopedic article defines synonymous words or phrases one way; it's centred on the concept. It's unusual but this is a perfectly well formed topic.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 19:44, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * e.g. cat article can talk about house cats, felines, moggies etc. etc. There's nothing wrong with listing synonyms in encyclopedia articles.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 19:54, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 'first things first', which very definitely is in the references. Unless you're claiming that they're not synonymous, your claim of OR is without merit; apart from being ridiculous anyway. I mean are you saying I made up these common terms?- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 19:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * There's a large category in the wikipedia of Category:Phrases in fact. These are by no means excluded.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 11:41, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. If this is indeed covered as well as the creator indicates, as succinctly and as significantly, then much better references should have been included. Links to obscure pages within Google Books, without descriptive text for linking is shoddy at best.  This looks like a hurried push, something not expected of an editor of his years.  A Google search reveals a mere 146,000 hits, most of which have nothing to do with this very obscurely presented concept. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 20:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * When I do a search for 'first things first' I get more than 2 million hits, and the first ones are essentially entire books on the same topic. Point of fact I couldn't call it 'first things first' because the wikipedia's software doesn't allow two names with different capitalisation, so I had to call it something different.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 20:06, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That should be a logical indicator to you that this article is doomed... - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 20:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No. First Things First is a disambiguation page with inappropriate case. There's entire books written on this topic. You're seriously claiming that because of broken software the wikipedia shouldn't have an article on a valid topic?- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 20:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 21:25, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Comment This would need a great deal of expansion to be an article for Wikipedia rather than for Wikitionary. Perhaps it too could be turned into a disambiguation page. DGG (talk) 00:13, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * We're supposed to be voting on whether the article can grow into a reasonable article. Given there are books on this, there's prima facie evidence that this is possible. I think it can happen, otherwise I wouldn't have created the article. I was also deliberately looking for types of articles that were not being covered; unusual articles tend to surprise people, and at deletion reviews this frequently causes them to vote delete. Given that there is no policy against the article I do not think it should be deleted.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 11:41, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Move to a phrase that is mentioned in the cited articles. Or, alternatively, Keep.  After all, we can always improve or move it later.  We just need to take it one step at a time.Hello, My Name Is SithMAN8 (talk) 23:13, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The principle is that it shouldn't matter that much what you call it, when you have multiple possibilities. This article is an umbrella article to combine the other articles into. This is perfectly well allowed, even encouraged, by the policies. This call for deletion is completely without merit.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 11:11, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, as unencyclopedic. It can always be created later if encyclopedic coverage becomes possible. Some phrases are topics in and of themselves (e.g., To be, or not to be). This one isn't, as far as I can tell from the sources provided. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The article does not seem to violate any of the things that wikipedia is not. If it is unencyclopedic, you will need to explain how. I'm personally sure it is indeed encyclopedic in fact.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 16:46, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * None of the sources (or could be) are about the phrase, they only include the phrase, because it is not an encyclopedic topic. You will need to explain how it is encyclopedic when there are no reliable sources about the phrase. I'm personally sure it is indeed unencyclopedic in fact. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 19:43, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Transwiki to Wiktionary. Coverage is not encyclopedic presently. --Cybercobra (talk) 05:08, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Split the various topics covered, and then delete this page. Note that the page does not discuss the phrase take it one step at a time. The section "Project Management" should be merged to Project management. A new page could be created for Kill a Turk and rest if there are reliable sources to establish notability. "Cow cow" should be transwikied to Wiktionary, unless well-sourced encyclopedic content can be added, in which case it could be a page. Cnilep (talk) 15:45, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * So, unlike the instructions in WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary you want to move synonymous terms apart in the encyclopedia? The wikipedia is an encyclopedia and articles are on a topic not on a phrase. Clearly these phrases are all the same topic, and hence are properly to be placed in the same article.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 16:42, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * My point is that the article does not have one topic, it has two or three, depending on how you count them. The lead section refers to "a common idea that it's important to do things in a particular order," and this is picked up again in the section "Project management". The other two sections, however, describe "a common Hebrew / Israeli slang expression" (Cow cow) and "a common Israeli saying" (Kill a Turk and rest). If this is to be on the topic of time management, these quasi-philological sections do not belong. Cnilep (talk) 14:12, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete or Transwiki if Wiktionary wants it. An odd combination of dictionary definitions of phrases and a how-to guide.  Unfortunately, neither of those is appropriate for Wikipedia.  Powers T 15:48, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Are these definitions not different words for the same thing though? If they are the same, then they are one topic and should be found in one article. That's how the wikipedia works.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 16:42, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, assuming it's a notable, encyclopedic topic. There's nothing encyclopedic to say about any of these phrases.  Besides, they're organized as if they all had different meanings: "'One step at a time' means such-and-such", "'cow cow' means blah blah blah", "'Kill a Turk and rest' means this and that...".  Powers T 17:55, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You're not arguing that they're different, you're saying that a stub article isn't particularly well laid out, and that calls for deletion? Uh huh. I must have missed that guideline. I think we knew that, otherwise it wouldn't be a stub article.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 14:58, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Please explain which bit is supposed to be a how-to. None of it is a how-to.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 16:42, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The Project Management section is the one to which I was referring, although maybe it's less of a how-to and more trivial information that doesn't actually say anything useful. Powers T 17:55, 10 August 2009 (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.