Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shoehorning

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 redirect to Shoehorn#Turn of phrase (non-admin closure) Rainbow unicorn (talk) 20:50, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shoehorning

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

From Wikipedia's deletion policy page, reason #7: "Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed" In addition to this, topic is not notable enough to warrant a page. Heilige Krieger (talk) 17:03, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but tweak to fit more general definition found here.[1], [2] Very common term used beyond psychics. —Мандичка^YO 😜 17:46, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:59, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ would seem to fall foul of WP:NEO, has only a single source. Possibly this topic could be covered better within a general article on psychics or con artists? 18:16, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
- Huh? I listed two sources above. And as I said, it is not only a reference to psychics and con artists. —Мандичка^YO 😜 18:26, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- redirect per below. Artw (talk) 22:18, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak delete~~Redirect to Shoehorn#Turn of phrase - I disagree that the topic is not notable. However, I agree that the page as currently constructed is too focused on applying the term to the paranormal when it is a general term which has been applied to many other contexts (such as business, education, lingusitics, and others). However, Wikpedia is not a dictionary and I can't imagine the article being much more than a dictionary definition and perhaps an unmaintainable list of examples from various fields and contexts. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 20:20, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

- Christ on a cracker. If a topic is notable, it's not fit for deletion. The article's current state has nothing to do with this discussion. WP:DEL-REASON —Мандичка^YO 😜 20:52, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I didn't say the article's current state has anything to do with if it should be deleted or not. I said that any possible article on this topic would be nothing more than a dictionary definition and thereby violate Wikipedia is not a dictionary, which is a long-established policy. Notability isn't the only deletion criteria. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 21:04, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect After reading the discussion above, I have changed my mind on the article's topic's notability, but still feel that it does not warrant a page of its own.Heilige Krieger (talk) 08:29, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per above; as per WP:NOTDIC, it doesn't need a standalone article. The larger article with the photograph gives helpful context for readers who may not have had occasion to use a shoehorn. --Djembayz (talk) 12:26, 9 November 2015 (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.