Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thinking about the immortality of the crab


 * 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.  

Thinking about the immortality of the crab
The result was KEEP. Closing-per WP:DPR Q  T C 16:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Withdrawing this AfD Q  T C 16:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep it is not a neologism. This idiom passes the google test. It is also the title of a recent movie by Paolo Agazzi. --evrik (talk) 15:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Strange . . when I Google it, I only get 190 results. Q  T C 15:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Try 1320 using your terms. --evrik (talk) 15:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * You searched on "pensar en la inmortalidad del cangrejo." Because the verb think, pensar, is conjugated, depending on the usage it could be pensar, pensando, etc. Searching only on "la inmortalidad del cangrejo," gives more accurate resultes. --evrik (talk) 15:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Then Still delete as its not an English neologism, should belong on es not en. Q  T C 15:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Please cite the Wikipedia policy that says this should happen. There is none. --evrik (talk) 15:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * There isn't one, but I"m saying introducing a topic on the English wikipedia that practically nobody has heard of was the wrong approach to take. Submitting it to the ES wikipedia where people more knowledgeable and able to apply the policies towards the content.  Then, if it passed notability and other policies, bring it to en. I wouldn't goto the Russian Wikipedia to initially start an article on an old Wild West neologism.   Q  T C 15:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and current content doesn't look much like an encyclopedic article to me. That said, if there's a movie... maybe we should have an article on the movie, and there could be a sentence or two explaining the origin of the title as this idiom.  Friday (talk) 15:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * So are you suggesting that every entry in Category:English idioms be nominated for deletion? --evrik (talk) 15:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * No, that'd be a bit silly. I'm saying that this article doesn't have much in the way of encyclopedic content. It defines the term.  If an encyclopedia article can be written on this topic, by all means, let's have it.  Friday (talk) 15:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * This article has as much encyclopedic content as some of the English idionms, such as Green ink or Hail fellow well met. This was listed as a stub. Perhaps if it had been given more than two minutes of existence before being tagged for deletion it would have had a chance to grow. --evrik (talk) 15:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, uncertainly, weakly, and provisionally. Notability exists independent of language; so if important idioms in the English language have encyclopedic articles written about them, so also should notable idioms in foreign languages.  Just about all of them will have a literary or folkloric dimension, and can be expanded beyond "a mere dictionary definition."  There doesn't seem to be much here yet, but there may be the possibility of more. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep: I seem to remember having a conversation about this phrase once. Of course, that doesn't make it notable, but as I understand, it comes from something. Can't seem to access the outside link, though - in order to make this a proper article, it will certainly need references. Let's see where this one goes. Sidatio 16:08, 1 August 2007 (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.