Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The new black


 * 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:34, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

The new black

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A dictionary definition, extended etymology, and numerous examples of the phrase being used or imitated (WP:OR, WP:SYNTH), such as might be found in the Oxford English Dictionary. No discussion of the phrase as discussed in secondary sources. See Articles for deletion/Mother of all for a parallel situation that has resulted in deletion. —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:38, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:40, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. Includes history, significance, and references. --Arcadian (talk) 14:27, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Notes For a word or phrase, "history" = "etymology", which I addressed. I wasn't citing the article for a lack of references&#8212; but verifiability isn't the issue. I'm 100% satisfied that the phrase exists and is used! I think that having articles for phrases that haven't already been the subject of discussion (as opposed to being used) in reliable sources opens a can of worms, where "can of worms" is a perfect illustration. Phrases like "can of worms", "moths to a flame", "cart before the horse", etc., seem more like dictionary material than encyclopedia material. In my opinion, anyway! I'm curious to see what others have to say. —Largo Plazo (talk) 14:58, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 28 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep or merge (to either snowclone or phrasal template). –Quiddity (talk) 21:38, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:DICDEF and WP:SYNTH. This page is little more than a collection of examples attempting to prove the subject's veracity. It is certainly a known expression, but the page does not meet Wikipedia's standards of verifiability. Yoninah (talk) 23:17, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete and create a wiktionary entry. Reh  man  03:06, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: Wiktionary is not some kind of wastebasket for unwanted Wikipedia content. If there are notable, verifiable, encyclopedic things to be said about a word or phrase, as with Thou or Final Solution, then keep the article. If there is no such encyclopedic potential, then delete it. Don't use the existence or non-existence of a Wiktionary entry as an argument for or against deleting Wikipedia articles. Cnilep (talk) 06:21, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:DICDEF or Redirect to Snowclone where it is explained adequately. It is just a dictionary definition that does not require an encyclopaedia entry.  — O'Dea  (talk) 07:30, 5 October 2013 (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.