Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Salad days

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 keep. Sandstein 07:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Salad days

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

Mere dictionary entry that already exists in Wiktionary. Only four articles in all of Wikipedia link here. Recommend delete under WP:DICTIONARY. Bueller 007 (talk) 05:50, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it seems to be notable, historic, and encyclopedic. Do you have any better reasons to delete? Bearian (talk) 05:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide a Wikipedia policy source for what constitutes an "encyclopedic idiom". As a general rule, encyclopedias do not include idioms, something that WP:DICTIONARY makes clear. FWIW, neither of the encyclopedias I just checked (Britannica and Encarta) include this. Calling it "encyclopedic" when you apparently can't point to an encyclopedia that includes it or to a Wikipedia policy that warrants its inclusion is a tad outlandish. Bueller 007 (talk) 06:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree with Bueller 007, WP:NAD. Plus its already listed. Daa89563 (talk) 13:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think a redirect or merge would make more sense, since we have the confusion of one article called Salad days and a disambiguation page called Salad Days, which is another example of no way to run an encyclopedia. For whatever reason, things like Wiktionary have never been linked on the sidebar, so saying that it already exists on Wiktionary is like saying that it can be found on Google. In addition, as one of those phrases that can be puzzling even for people who are native speakers of English, it is something that one would consult a reference work for. I liken it to "possession is nine tenths of the law" something that people misuse because they don't know what it means, or that they are reluctant to admit that they have no idea what it means. Some expressions fall under the "WTF?" category and are not readily discernible even from context. That said, I think that if the argument is "this does NOT belong on Wikipedia" carries, the information can be mentioned as part of Salad Days, along with a link to Wiktionary. How long it would last there before is questionable. Mandsford (talk) 16:12, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can see where this is going ... I would go along with Mandsford. Bearian (talk) 18:30, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect is acceptable, however I think the dictionary stuff should be trimmed down... Delete with redirect to Salad Days, and make the lead sentence something like "Salad days is an idiom meaning "days of youthful inexperience" or "heyday (not necessarily in one's youth)". It was first used in Shakespeare's Antony and Cleopatra in 1606." Then the disambig list. I've created a model by merging Halcyon days with Halcyon Days. Bueller 007 (talk) 07:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT a dictionary. JBsupreme (talk) 20:51, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is expandable beyond a dictionary--see the g books and g scholar results. The nature of the metaphor has been the subject of academic discussion: I've added the key source for that. DGG ( talk ) 04:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Absurd nomination of an excellent scholarly article. The matter is notable as DGG explains. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep needs sourcing but that is something that can be provided, (maybe you could stubify the article, moving unsourced information to talk?) like the history of the word. http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Salad_days is a mere stub compared to this (only 2 sentences), with little history of this odd term Ikip 02:26, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the same reason as all the others. A common idiom should have its own Wikipedia article, there no reason to delete. Dream Focus 06:04, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Having two articles with the same name (outside of a single capped letter) is a just a mess. The Salad Days page is a reasonable Wikipedia disambig and gives all the info it should. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 22:17, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, substantial cultural and historical currency. Everyking (talk) 07:16, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. Very capable of being turned into a worthwhile article. --FormerIP (talk) 17:48, 1 February 2010 (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.