Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/English language idioms derived from falconry

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 delete. The consensus is to delete, but should a reliable source be found, I am happy to restore this article -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 03:02, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

English language idioms derived from falconry

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

I don't believe this is notable enough to warrant an article. It's a highly obscure topic which could be considered OR, and there are no refs. I propose either deletion or merging of the content. Comments? —out^offocus 03:04, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
These are common English expressions, and the features of falconry which these expressions are derived from are major central parts of falconry. For refs, ask any falconer, or look in many falconry books. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:03, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's true, many idioms are derived from falconry. But just as many idioms are derived from sailing, gardening, and so on, and it would be silly have a separate article for each. This is better suited to be a category on Wiktionary, not an article on Wikipedia. --hkr Laozi speak 07:44, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per hkr's rationale above; no indication that falconry-based idioms are an encyclopedic subset of idioms in general, and inclusion of such seemingly arbitrary lists borders on WP:INDISCRIMINATE. The statements themselves appear to be more of use at Wiktionary. If anything can be sourced, such could be merged into the idiom article or falconry article. --Kinu ^t/_c 08:01, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not Wiktionary. --Diego Grez (talk) 20:34, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So indeed, Wikipedia is not Wiktionary, but an article on the common origins of words seems plenty fine to me, providing it meets the GNG. As of now, we have no sources in the article, which holds me back from recommending a keep. Can it be sourced? Jclemens (talk) 15:52, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep of course it can be sourced, since the etymology of each phrase can be. I see no reason not to have similar article on idioms from "sailing, gardening, and so on,". It would be absurd to merge these into a list of idioms--such an overgeneral group would not be useful. Any distinct class of words treated asa class is suitable for an article (yes, Wiktionary could do this also, but it doesn't--it seems to be deprecatingthe entire set of idioms lists) DGG ( talk ) 02:49, 29 October 2010 (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.