Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pars pro toto principle

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) 00:57, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pars pro toto principle

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article has relied on a single reference for months now. This probably belongs on Wiktionary rather than here per WP:NOTDIC. Perhaps we could create a soft redirect. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 21:03, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:15, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with the redirect as suggested. It is simply a phrase. – S. Rich (talk) 22:56, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to the already-existing pars pro toto where this additional, distinct use can be briefly explained. 72.200.151.13 (talk) 03:24, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.