Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bee's knees

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 no consensus. —Xyrael / 15:26, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bee's knees

Dictionary defintion. Should be moved to Wiktionary or deleted. BrianSmithson 09:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom (already on Wiktionary wikt:bee's knees). Yomangani^talk 09:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom --Mecanismo | Talk 10:52, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This particular articles has existed since October 2005. It has been cleaned up, and has grown. I did a google search on the word “encyclopedia” and came up with the following:

  A reference source containing information on a variety of topics. This information may be supplied in short paragraphs or in lengthy articles that include citations to other works on the same topic. Encyclopedias can be general - covering all topics, or specialized - focusing on a particular discipline such as art or philosophy. [1]

• I object to what I see as the tagging of short articles because of "importance," not every article in wikipedia needs to be a treatise. I also object to the fact that this article was tagged, almost as an afterthought because of the cat's pajamas. --evrik 16:07, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • The time the article was able to stay under the radar of wikipedians is irrelevant when talking about merit and encyclopedic value. As it has been stated, it is only a dictionary entry. Not everything has merit or value to be mentioned in an encyclopedia. --Mecanismo | Talk 17:29, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • The article has not been nominated for deletion because of "importance". Please read the actual nomination, and our Wikipedia is not a dictionary policy. Uncle G 18:59, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Hogwash . It's not like it existed unnoticed. If you look at the history, you'll see that the article was tagged with clean-up and people have been making small and incremental chnages. This kind of work is what wikipedia is all about. I'm guessing that no more than ten people will decide whether or not it is important, but it is encyclopedic. --evrik 17:48, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Our Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary policy defines what is encyclopaedic. Quite ironically, you actually make the very point for us. In order to wikilink the word "hogwash", you've had to link to nonsense instead. In the dictionary, which is over there, there is an article for "hogwash". Uncle G 19:05, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • No irony. There is no entry for Hogwash, and it was redirecting to bullshit which is a stronger word than I wanted to say. Had this been tagged with {{Move to Wiktionary}} by the nominator, I would have argued that while wikipedia is not a dictionary, some entries that provide cultural context are important. Also, I object to this article being placed on this list because I disagreed with the nominator about the importance of cat’s pajamas and he decided to retaliate by nominating both articles for deletion, this was not assuming good faith nor civil about the whole process. Deleting every article that appears to be a dictionary item leaves wikipedia bereft of some of its context.--evrik 19:53, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Again, I only followed the correct deletion procedure. If you think I was uncivil, I look forward to the Request for Comment against me. Frankly, you are taking this far too personally. — BrianSmithson 22:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as it is currently a definition and exists on Wiktionary. Srose (talk) 17:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as oer WP:NOT ST47 17:51, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep While it's true that WP is not a dictionary, it's been proved many times over that encyclopedic articles can arise from words and phrases. Give this one some time to grow and expand. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Perhaps someone could create a more expansive article on 1920s slang? I would have no problem with keeping such an article. — BrianSmithson 07:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Blood red sandman (talk • contribs).
• Strong Keep It addresses more than just the definition. The section concerning the origin is small, but it is referenced and it has the potential to grow. Considerable historical interest as well--It isn't a neologism. Irongargoyle 20:54, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • The "section concerning the origin" is known as an etymology section, and is a standard part of a dictionary article. You can see it in the Wiktionary article, at wikt:bee's knees#Etymology. That has the potential to grow. (Wiktionary is not paper, and its etymology sections can be as long as necessary.) And it is where such growth should occur. Uncle G 10:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• A dictionary article about a phrase that has been mis-placed in the wrong project. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Delete. Uncle G 10:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Wikipedia is not a dictionary, but so what? "bee's knees" is not a word. It's a phrase with historical and cultural context, and in the article is reflected as such. forceshield
  • Wiktionary takes phrases as well as words, as do most dictionaries, and the Wiktionary article for this phrase was linked to right at the beginning of this discussion. Uncle G 01:25, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Dictionaries may contain phrases, but do dictionaries usually contain historical context? Obviously this is not a dictionary entry. - Robre 20:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• keep not a mere dictionary definition. — brighterorange (talk) 20:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep If you disagree with the format or content of the article then be bold and improve it how you see fit. Nominating a perfectly good encyclopedic article for deletion just because you feel its too much like a dictionary entry screams laziness. - Robre 20:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The current article is beyond the scope of a mere dictionary definition. RFerreira 07:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This is a well-known slang term. The article is already greater than a mere dicdef, and can most likely be expanded further. — NMChico24 03:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• keep please per nmchico24 this term is well known and more than a dictdef Yuckfoo 19:08, 30 August 2006 (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.