Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cat's pajamas

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, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 00:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cat's pajamas

Dictionary definition. Should be moved to Wiktionary or deleted. BrianSmithson 08:59, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom (already on Wiktionary wikt:cat's pyjamas). Yomangani^talk 09:19, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Encylopedic information. This particular article was tagged for deletion less than an hour from it’s creation. 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. This is slang, so it doesn’t qualify for the List of idioms in the English language. However, I see at least four links to the page, and the Cat's pajamas (disambiguation) has six different references. Before anyone brings it up as some sort of accusation, I did create and bulk up both articles. --evrik 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 19:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I may have been confused because the article got tagged with {{importance}} and {{dated prod}}. In any case, without being too snarky about this whole thing I want to say that nominator was not assuming good faith nor civil about the whole process.

      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. The fact that he went and escalated the issue by slapping the {{afd}} template reeks of retaliation (and is the whole reason both this and bee's knees are up for deletion. This may not be a large article, but it certainly passes the google test. There are a lot of items that may be more appropriate as dictionary entries. If instead of being deleted, there was a redirect to Wiktionary, that would be fine with me. --evrik 19:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

      • Um, what? I simply followed the proper procedure for nominating an article for deletion. First you put {{prod}} on it. If someone disagrees, you put {{afd}} on it so that a proper debate can occur. I was unaware that there is a {{move to wiktionary}} template. It's nothing personal and has absolutely nothing to do with civility or assuming good faith. If you think I was uncivil, please bring it up on my talk page and I'll be happy to discuss the matter. — BrianSmithson 22:54, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
      • some entries that provide cultural context — If you want to write about cultural contexts, then write an encyclopaedia article about the cultural context that spawned a whole load of words and phrases, not a dictionary article about a single phrase. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Uncle G 11:02, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete epr nom ST47 17:52, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. It's on Wiktionary and in its current form it's a dictionary definition. Evrik, if you can provide examples of this phrase's "cultural context", the article could be saved, but right now it's just a definition. Also, please don't accuse Mr. Smithson of "retaliating" against you by nominating certain articles for AfD. I'm quite sure that's not the case; he seems like a very reasonable person. Srose (talk) 20:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• The edit histories speak for themselves. As for it's cultural impact, all I can offer is Cat's pajamas (disambiguation) and google search.--evrik 20:03, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Abstain. Delete It is possible that Cat's pajamas (diambiguation) could worked up into a useful article. This is not, now, that article. I will come back and see. JCScaliger 22:27, 24 August 2006 (UTC) It hasn;t been, and doesn't look to be. I will look again, hopefully before closure. JCScaliger 20:01, 28 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)
• Delete per nom - Blood red sandman 13:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Due to the artical citing historical refrences and the history of the phrase it should qualify as an entry, also it's useful. (UTC)
• 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 20:55, 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:cat's pyjamas#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 11:02, 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 11:02, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• keep not a dictionary definition. — brighterorange (talk) 20:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as this is beyond the scope of a mere dictionary definition. RFerreira 07:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • How so? — BrianSmithson 08:54, 29 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.