Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jam tomorrow

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 Keep --JForget 00:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jam tomorrow

Jam tomorrow (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Non notable neo. No other refs than the book, and that alone is not significant enough. It does not deserve it's own article. My vote is for Delete, but if a good justification can be brought for a merge, I'll probably go with that too. Undeath (talk) 21:03, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep, covered in Cassell's Dictionary of English Idioms, Fun With Proverbs, etc. Clearly in wide use. --Dhartung | Talk 21:23, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep While I disagree with Dhartung's point (just because something is in a dictionary doesn't make it notable), if you do a google search for "jam tomorrow" you will come up with a lot of articles that use the phrase. So definitely in wide use. I've put an {{unreferenced}} tag on the article, since it completely lacks any sources, but I think this article is salvage-able.-Aervanath (talk) 21:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment My point was that by being in a dictionary it was not subject to WP:NEO, which is widely misapplied in my view. --Dhartung | Talk 00:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable phrase [1] SunCreator (talk) 23:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep: The phrase is notable and in use. The article goes beyond a definition to describe its history and contemporary use so it isn't just a dictionary entry. It could do with more references though. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:55, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment If the vote is for keep, the least that should happen is to take out those large blocks of quoted text. A quote is not meant to be that long in an article, mainly because that actually may be a copyvio.(I don't know if it truly is or not though) In my opinion, the quotes should be taken out, and more links should be provided. Undeath (talk) 18:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Through the Looking-Glass was published in 1871 and has expired copyright. I am not sure about the other quote. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
The Lewis poem is from a 1954 letter, but we only quote two of six stanzas.pdf I don't see what's wrong with an extended quote, myself, but in the latter we probably only need the first four lines of the second stanza. --Dhartung | Talk 22:19, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep: The phrase is notable, and it is convenient to refer people to the page when I use the phrase and they give me a confused look. --Larry Hastings (talk) 13:49, 17 April 2008 (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.