Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/"the wind up"

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 Transwiki -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 21:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "the wind up"

"the wind up" (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Clearly a neologism, no notability. Violates WP:NEO and WP:NOTE. Sr13 (T|C) 18:00, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion...changing nomination. Clearly a dicdef, fails WP:WINAD. Sr13 (T|C) 05:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• my intention in posting the proposed article "the wind up" is that it is NOT a neologism but a widely if infrequently used expression in British fiction (possibly also biography?) during the 20th century. I have seen it often, understood its meaning eventually from context, and often wondered where it came from and it more precise meaning. I have not found it in encyclopeadias or dictionaries uncluding the shorter oxford english dictionary. There are three rather obique references in wikipedia that do not help to understand the aspect I wanted to know. I hoped by posting what I know as an article to elicite a response from someone more knowledgeable than myself to calarify the useage. I think it would be a pity to delete it since I am sure others may wonder at its use, especially as there is now a resurgence in interest in books by sayers, shute, christie and many british mystery writers of the last century. I request indulgence to keep it and see whst is added when others, especilly british people more familiar with the phrase, edit the article. Alan Pooley, avid reader. Alan Pooley 20:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - This isn't a neologism per se; as a British person I've heard the phrase "to put the wind up [someone]" many times, and it's often used in literature. However, the relevant policy here is WP:WINAD; this kind of article belongs in Wiktionary, not Wikipedia. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 20:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete dicdef Croxley 21:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WINAD. It is not a neologism (why do people always say that for things they've just never heard before?), but it is a dicdef. --Dhartung | Talk 21:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete as dicdef. Agreed I don't understand why this is being labelled a neologism. 23skidoo 00:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Sorry about the misled nom. Apparently, I wasn't too familiar with the term. Dicdef and violates WP:WINAD. Sr13 (T|C) 05:14, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• Transwiki seems like it is notable enough for Wiktionary. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 05:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• Transwiki and then Delete under WP:WINAD as a nailed on dic def. Nuttah68 11:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
• Transwiki. wikt:wind up exists, but wikt:put the wind up does not. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:11, 5 March 2007 (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.