Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barking up the wrong tree

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 SNOW Keep . bd2412 T 15:08, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Barking up the wrong tree

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

WP:NOTDICT Bueller 007 (talk) 08:44, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:NOTDICT.—Ryulong (琉竜) 12:15, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (articulate) @ 13:37, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per WP:SK. As noted above, this seems to be part of a bundle of nominations related to a geographical dispute and seem to have frivolous, irrelevant character contrary to WP:POINT, WP:HARASS and WP:DISRUPT. Warden (talk) 15:07, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. @Warden: you are incorrect, and you clearly need to read WP:AGF. Please base your argument on the merit of the article rather than a personal attack against motivations. These articles are clearly outside the realm of any territorial dispute. Ansei/Tenmei has created hundreds or thousands of articles; Ryulong and I have nominated only a handful ones that do not belong in an encyclopedia because they are idioms and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. You may wish to consider reading that article as well. Bueller 007 (talk) 16:16, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This AfD is part of a tag team event -- see here.

It is noteworthy that Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2013_May_31 includes so many articles in which the same writer invested time and research? --Tenmei (talk) 15:15, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per previous comments, this appears to have nothing to do with dictionary definitions, but appears to be part of a pointy set of inappropriate AfD nominations. Acroterion (talk) 15:21, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Going with my comments on the other articles of this nature, it's more than just a dictionary definition. I say keep it.—Σosthenes12 ^Talk 16:51, 31 May 2013 (UTC)Sosthenes12[reply]
Snow Keep per WP:DEADHORSE 24.151.116.25 (talk) 17:03, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sourced piece on a historic idiomatic expression of sufficient stature to support encyclopedic coverage. Carrite (talk) 17:08, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The motion was a waste of time, but keeping the article isn't. Way more than a definition. Moveants are barking up the wrong tree, and paddling up the wrong river. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:48, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is obviously more than a dictionary definition as others have pointed out. JayJay^{What did I do?} 20:59, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Noted expression and cemented in culture. It is obviously more than a dictionary definition as others have pointed out. It looks to me like a case of WP:OVERZEALOUS. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 13:09, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Dictionaries don't deal in idiomatic expressions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:06, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This isn't just a dictionary definition, its a proper article. Stop barking up the wrong tree with these misguided mass nominations of things. Dream Focus 12:45, 3 June 2013 (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.