Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Titular line


 * 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. – bradv  🍁  06:10, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Titular line

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This was PRODded but then I noticed that I PRODded it in 2009 and that was undone, so we can't PROD it again. My original PROD rational was based on WP:NOTDICDEF. The rationale this time, by User:JasonAQuest, was "It's barely a dictionary item, for a little-used phrase, and has attracted no development since it was created over a decade ago. (This deletion rationale is already longer than the content of the article.)" I supplemented that (before I noticed the repeat PROD) with "Frankly, as given here, the article is WP:OR. The one source given only uses the term, it doesn't explain it. The presentation here is essentially "I saw this term somewhere and, based on its use in that context, here's what I deduce and generalize its meaning to be." Largoplazo (talk) 03:21, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Largoplazo (talk) 03:21, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Largoplazo (talk) 03:21, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Largoplazo (talk) 03:21, 30 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Speedy Delete. I'd argue that the previous PROD means it shouldn't need a repeat PROD: it should just be deleted. The only "reason" (frankly, a lapse of reason) it wasn't deleted before was that Wiktionary wouldn't take it, which simply means it doesn't belong in either place. 10 years ago a drive-by editor dropped a turd here, and Wikipedia has been occasionally polishing it ever since. Just flush. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 14:30, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It doesn't qualify under any of the criteria for speedy deletion, and PRODding just doesn't work like that. See WP:PROD. Largoplazo (talk) 02:58, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * If your point is that the process is clearly broken in this case, I agree. Keeping an article that no one argued should be kept, simply because no one else wanted it, demonstrates a bug in that process. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 02:39, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * My point was to explain the way it actually works and to distinguish it from the way you seemed to be saying it works, the way you believe it should work. If you want to discuss changing the way it works, it will serve no purpose to discuss it here. You'd have to do that at Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion. Largoplazo (talk) 03:06, 4 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:NOTDICDEF, WP:OR, and the turd stuff. Mdaniels5757 (talk) 22:01, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete because it's barely even a thing that qualifies as a dictionary term. The previous voter cites WP:NOTDICDEF and WP:OR correctly, and one would be hard pressed to find evidence that writers, critics, or other experts even use the term at all, beyond passive mentions. ---  DOOMSDAYER 520 (Talk&#124;Contribs) 22:08, 5 January 2020 (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.