Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Status quo

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. v/r - T P 03:41, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Status quo

The topic is not notable, being just a vague phrase, similar to the way things were. The article has no reliable sources - just Wiktionary and a self-published website - and there doesn't seem to be anything much for this out there. The phrase seems to be just dictionary material and it is our policy that Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Warden (talk) 19:02, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redirect to List of Latin phrases (S). No evidence of any particular notability, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --S Larctia (talk) 19:55, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Per S Larctia. ItsZippy (talk) 19:56, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:49, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No Opinion on keeping or deleting the article, but if deleted I suggest a Redirect to Status Quo (band) instead of List of Latin phrases (S) as a likely search term. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 22:30, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Per S Larctia. Definitely do not direct to the band article. -- PBS (talk) 13:51, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The fact that people might confuse it with the band gives enough reason to describe the original meaning. Agreed that it shouldn't redirect to the band. Groogle (talk) 01:28, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - not your run of the mill Latin phrase. Very easy to add sources. Sheesh! Bearian (talk) 16:54, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it's so easy then how is that you have not cited any sources? Warden (talk) 18:29, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious Keep This phrase is used regularly. 654,000 news results and 1,560,000 book results for instance. This article isn't just a definition, but explains where the expression came from. Dream Focus 18:18, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't this also something taught in political or social studies classes? Dream Focus 19:30, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but merge with some of the related articles (e.g. status quo ante bellum). Those articles are better targets for deletionists and their historical material could be included here. Wiki-Ed (talk) 00:46, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the Latin list. Drmies (talk) 01:05, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep basic concept, not just a phrase. Suitable for Wikipedia. (and, for that matter, I think many of the other phrases in that list are also. Thee is no sharp distinction between a dictionary and an encyclopedia , DGG ( talk ) 01:14, 12 September 2011 (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.