Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of redundant expressions

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 of the debate was No consensus, so keep. --Deathphoenix 20:54, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of redundant expressions

Delete. The inclusion of almost any expression on this list is open to dispute, either about whether or not it is really redundant, or whether or not it is a notably used expression, or both. There is no possibility of this page becoming adequately sourced, authoritative or encyclopedic. I don't see how it can be saved within Wikipedia. I acknowledge there may be other lists about which the same could be said, which I haven't noticed yet. Delete. Zargulon 10:47, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - I think it's an interesting compilation. Ruby 12:31, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

• Not sure why that means it should be in an encyclopedia. Zargulon 12:40, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

• I'm not sure why it shouldn't be in an encyclopedia. Is there a specific Wikipedia policy that the article has violated? Zarquon 12:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

• Not sure what you mean.. do you really think that only articles which violate specific Wikipedia policies may be deleted? In fact, specific policy violations can often be fixed without deleting articles. If you think this article can be fixed without deletion, maybe you should try it. I genuinely wish you the best of luck and hope you don't waste too much time. Zargulon 13:04, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

• No, I don't think that only articles which violate specific Wikipedia policies may be deleted. Zarquon 22:07, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete pointless listcruft, the handful of examples at redundancy (language) are more than enough to give the general idea :: Supergolden 13:23, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Guettarda 13:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete appears to be original research. The one reference only mentions the existance of redundancy without giving any of these examples. Zeimusu | Talk page 13:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as original research. Robin Johnson 13:47, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
• Rename to List of redundant expressions of redundancy. (joke) Actually it's a somewhat interesting list. Perhaps it could be transwikied into a book on the English language? — RJH 19:41, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. It is deffinitely encyclopedic under English language and grammar, and there is a place where it can be saved otherwise: Tautology which even has a examples section. So it can be merged there.--Vizcarra 22:44, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Interesting, yes, but completely unencylopedic POV, original research, opinion, what have you. As Zargulon said, almost every item here is open to debate. For example, "12 noon" is not necessarily redundant, it depends on the usage and application. In applications where a numerical time indicator is required, the "noon" or "midnight" (or perhaps a.m. or p.m.) qualifier is essential. "As to whether" is arguably not a redundancy, it's just incorrect grammar. And how about "bouquet of flowers". I don't think that's redundant. Ever heard of or seen a bouquet of balloons? I have. Amusing and interesting, but not encyclopedic. Crunch 00:25, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Here are more. "It's high time." That's different than "it's time." It's a different nuance. It's like saying "It's about time!" And, "golden wedding anniversary" is different than "golden anniversary." The former is just the 50th anniversary of a wedding. The latter is the 50th anniversary of anything, I believe. See how interpretations can vary? Crunch 00:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Of course "12 noon" is redundant. Can noon be any hour other than 12? Denni ☯ 01:12, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

No, but 12 can. Gosh. Crunch 01:18, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Which means that "noon" suffices and "12 noon" is a redundant expression. --Vizcarra 03:41, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

No. Noon has an alternative meaning of the time when the sun is highest in the sky. "12" disambiguates. Zargulon 10:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment. It's arguments like this that show this is an essay and not an encyclopedia article. Robin Johnson 10:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

It's arguments like this that suggest that articles like this are desperately needed to educate and to inform. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 12:23, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, but not in wikipedia. Zargulon 12:40, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a very useful list and I hope it stays public, but this is simply not what Wikipedia is for, unless every one of those expressions is notable for being a redundant expression, and discussed as such a citable reputable source somewhere. Robin Johnson 14:16, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Though there is room for dispute on some items, this list contains some of my pet peeves. Denni ☯ 01:09, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

• Then perhaps it should go in your pet encyclopedia.Zargulon 01:13, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

• This gets to the essence of what's encylopedic. It's not a list of what bugs you or what you find interesting or amusing or pet peevish. Crunch 01:18, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

• Weak delete. Definitely interesting, definitely verifiable, and definitely well-researched. Encyclopedic? Sadly, no. Stifle 14:18, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

  In fact, this also violates WP:ASR. Stifle 14:23, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Not certain I understand you: WP:ASR suggests that articles should not refer back to Wikipedia, not that they shouldn't refer to themselves, or talk about doing that: "Avoid self-references within Wikipedia articles to the Wikipedia project". HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 12:23, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep contains useful information, which shouldn't be lost.  Grue  14:46, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, somebody's opinions are not grammatical fact. User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and expand per D. -- JJay 00:39, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - needs some source references, but it's fine. -- Netoholic @ 19:23, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per the above comments. Indeed, this is an essay, not an encyclopedia article. There must be some other GFDL wiki that could serve as a suitable venue. —David Levy 21:54, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. That being said, this is still an interesting article–it just doesn't belong here.Mackensen (talk) 22:49, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and add references. —Phil | Talk 12:23, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Lukas ^(T.|@) 16:18, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Contains genuine insights into the nature of the English language and how it is used in popular culture. Although it could use some sifting, the list shows merit in the field of linguistics if nothing else. I feel the particularities of how symantics, grammar and popular phraseology evolve is of definite Encyclopedic worth. Walrus125 23:45, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Even as I readily encounter many of the expressions listed, and even as I am altogether put off by the use of such expressions (de temps en temps), I think this is surely original research. I concur with the assessment of Mackensen. Joe 04:42, 30 January 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.