Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Snowflake (slang)

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. WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure)‎ Bruxton (talk) 03:55, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Snowflake (slang) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Violation of the five pillars of Wikipedia, Specifically the section that states Wikipedia is not a dictionary.

WP:NOT WP:NOTDICTIONARY 1keyhole (talk) 03:33, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Snow keep (sorry). Nominator appears to misunderstand WP:NOTDICTIONARY. The article is well-referenced and goes far beyond a dictionary definition, providing lots of encyclopedic information about the term. Regards, HaeB (talk) 03:40, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Haeb. Some words do belong in an encyclopedia. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 07:00, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. WP:NOTDICTIONARY means that we shouldn't keep articles that consist only of a dictionary definition, but as the policy says, "In some cases, a word or phrase itself may be an encyclopedic subject, such as Macedonia (terminology) or truthiness." This article goes into extensive detail about the history and usage of the word and is much more than a dictionary definition. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 12:06, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - article is well beyond a dictionary definition. -- Whpq (talk) 12:47, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this article is encyclopedic and goes beyond a simple dicdef. Lightburst (talk) 13:37, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There's plenty of words that've got articles (whataboutism, Karen (slang), the, you) to name a tiny few. WP:DICDEF does not mean "Words can't have articles", it means "Word articles can't read like a Wiktionary entry". This is as clear of a case of not WP:DICDEF as it gets. This nomination should probably be WP:SNOW closed, better yet, I'd suggest withdrawing this nomination and saving both editors and admins alike the trouble of participating/processing what is clearly a gross misapplication of the AFD process.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 14:28, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow keep (heh) Yet another superficial reading of a WP:NOT policy. small jars tc 15:20, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Special, unique, beautiful snowflake keep. Regrettably, despite the banality of its subject, this is a well-written article that passes notability guidelines, and I do not see a good argument to delete it. jp×g 03:36, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow keep. Plenty of valid references to pass GNG. Article is much more than a dictionary definition. Rupples (talk) 15:46, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.