Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Turn in one's grave

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 no consensus. The delete arguments centred on WP:NOTDICDEF, while keep arguments said it was sourced and met GNG. As Wikipedia has a number of articles on words and phrases, some quite well developed, per Category:Words and phrases, it is unclear what the general consensus is regarding which words and phrases are allowable on Wikipedia, and similarly consensus is not clear in this AfD debate. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 18:01, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Turn in one's grave

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

Wikipedia isn't a dictionary and this is clearly never going to progress beyond dicdef. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:19, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely agree with Spartz's comment, the article was created as a dictionary definition and won't progress further. Callanecc (talk) 15:05, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:17, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, weakly, per nomination. Unlike some other idioms, this one is fairly self-explanatory. As far as I know there's no folk narrative or historical allusion that goes with it and that's needed to make sense of it or use it intelligently. That kind of detail can turn an article about an idiom into something more than a dictionary definition. If someone finds appropriate material I would be happy to reconsider. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:23, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Smerdis. If we can find sources that suggest that the term itself might be a notable topic, then we can consider keeping it. Until then, we should delete per WP:DICTIONARY. I did try a brief search, but couldn't find any sources discussing the term among the mountains of sources that simply use it. Someone more familiar with finding such things might have better luck. If no sources can be found, then we should delete, not transwiki - Wiktionary already has a fine definition of the phrase. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 15:38, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per my edits. Theres definitely enough substance for an article here. All the phrases which have historical/etymological etc. info surrounding them should be turned into articles. This is only the beginning.--Coin945 (talk) 15:59, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete after moving anything essential to Wiktionary. Origin and examples of usage belong in a dictionary - there's nothing to merit an encyclopedia article here.--Michig (talk) 16:36, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree - there still doesn't seem to be anything in the article that indicates that the phrase is encyclopedic, but the recent additions are very welcome and should probably be transwikied. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 23:54, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:19, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY and WP:GNG. Lots of phrases and idioms have articles, and this seems like one of the most notable that ought to be here. It will be useful for our core readership, students, who may not be familiar with its connotation or etymology. Bearian (talk) 01:22, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets general notability guidelines and this is an idiom which is useful and garners sufficient public interest. Pass a Method talk 04:40, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per not a dictionary. The secondary sources present are dictionaries, mainly cited as a source of definitions. The non-dictionary sources are primary sources that use the phrase, not analyses of the phrase as a phrase. I believe that there is a place for encyclopedia articles on notable words and phrases, but this ain't one of those. Cnilep (talk) 01:21, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note If Wikipedia were a normal encyclopedia, I would wholeheartedly agree with the deletes... but lets be honest here. Wikipedia has become so much more then that. It is becoming the hub if all knowledge. This information, while maybe not the "best" to include in a encyclopedia, is greatly important to many people and for that reason I think it should be kept.--Coin945 (talk) 18:50, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WINAD, perhaps shifting anything not already duplicated to Wiktionary. Stifle (talk) 17:14, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as a phrase with a provable and interesting etymology. Should also be in a dictionary, but that's no reason it shouldn't be here too. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:50, 30 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]

note Thats an interesting analogy. I also thought about dictionary term rules, but then realized there are several similar articles on wikipedia so therefore thought it would be okay. Pass a Method talk 11:25, 30 January 2012 (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.