Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/King Maker

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 redirect makes sense W.marsh 19:44, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] King Maker

King Maker (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View log)

contested prod, dictionary definition, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Lightspeed Delete encouraged :) -- lucasbfr ^talk 15:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, dicdef only, what WP is not. The Rambling Man 15:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment the original author has come back and expanded the article a bit. I left a note on his talk page to know if he have plan on expanding the article further (I fear I did not wait long enough before nominating (1 hour)) -- lucasbfr ^talk 16:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete even with additions, it's still a dictionary defintiion. JCO312 16:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment If you think it still even resembles a dictionary definition, one must conclude that you have not spent much time reading dictionaries. Furthermore, it is a phrase. Dictionaries are for words. An argument could be made that it might resemble an entry in a reference book on American idiom, if one wanted to be pedantic, but certainly not a dictionary definition. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Amonk (talk • contribs) 16:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC).
• Delete. It's not an Americanism, as the history of the term actually dates back to when the leaders in question were kings or their advisors — Merriam-Webster (as part of the 1995 Brittanica home edition) reports the date of origin as 1599. And the previous commentor is wrong, dictionaries are for noun phrases such as this, and "kingmaker" is normally one word, and not capitalized when it's two words. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Fine. Delete it if you all want to. I didn't write that it was an Americanism, or even that it originated in the USA. I wrote of how it is used in the USA. Learn to read what is written rather than what you assume is written. Not doing so makes you look sloppy at best. Furthermore, only lousy dictionaries, such as Websters, and only recently, started including phrases too. Not long ago, dictionaries were for words, just as not long ago people could still write with punctuation and capitalization. Furthermore, since you seem to like Websters for some reason, it's own definition for the word dictionary says it is for words, and nothing more. [1] Moreover, even the Wikipedia dictionary page you cite says dictionaries are only for words. :-) Finally, regarding your last point, it is the only intelligent thing you wrote. Evidently, it is usually written as one syncopated word and there is even an entry for it as such in Wikipedia already. I therefore propose they be merged under the original. [Note: I tried to uncapitalise it too, but it broke the link and I didn't have enough time to look into resolving that before you all started jumping down my throat.] Amonk 17:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
• Merge to Kingmaker - duplicates the same concept, but this article does have relevant information about American politics. If no one objects I will go ahead and merge. Walton monarchist89 17:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Great. I was going to do it, but I'd be just as happy if you would. I'm a Wikipedia editing newbie and, as you all may have already noticed, not so adept as yet. Furthermore, I have gotten a little overwhelmed in my little effort to contribute, what with having to defend my life to Saint Peter and all in the process. :-) I'll change the link in Kucinich, for which I added the entry, to coincide. Amonk 20:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I was going to close the discussion but Kingmaker appears to be a DAB page... So I'll wait for an admin to decide what to do instead of doing something wrong -- lucasbfr ^talk 22:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
• I have now merged the two articles under Kingmaker, but can't replace King Maker with a redirect until this AfD is closed. Walton monarchist89 16:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
• Change to Merge. Make it an {{R from capitalization}} or misspelling or some other non-print-worthy redirect, as there's still no evidence it has ever been two words in actual usage. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy keep as redirect to Kingmaker. The "information about U.S. politics" was unsourced material about matter that belongs elsewhere and had NPOV problems: George McGovern's role in setting up the current primary system, (2) the relevance or irrelevance of kingmakers to U.S. politics since then, (3) POV assertions that political contributors "buy" or "rent" politicians and that this is a change from previous systems. All of this may belong somewhere, but not in a dab page, and certainly not unsourced. I removed all except the restriction of usage to the United States, which seems likely and I do not challenge. Robert A.West (Talk) 20:31, 20 January 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.