Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Learning the hard way

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The result was withdrawn.—Ryulong (琉竜) 08:35, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Learning the hard way

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

Wikipedia is not an idiom dictionary. —Ryulong (琉竜) 03:14, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Bueller 007 (talk) 05:22, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. czar · · 06:48, 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) 15:10, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You should really not copy-paste your arguments from other pages when they have no context here. I will admit I found this article and the others I nominated for deletion by going through a single author's contributions, but only after I discovered that he had created several other poorly formatted articles that violated core Wikipedia policies.—Ryulong (琉竜) 15:17, 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) 15:23, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per previous comments, this appears to have nothing to do with dictionary definitions ("Wikipedia is not an idiom dictionary" is a reason for deletion??), but appears to be part of a pointy set of inappropriate AfD nominations. Acroterion (talk) 15:25, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is the first AFD that was made. How could it be part of a "pointy set of inappropriate AfD nominations"? Tenmei authored a bunch of idiom definition articles. Bueller 007 and I put them at AFD.—Ryulong (琉竜) 15:28, 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 16:58, 31 May 2013 (UTC)Sosthenes12[reply]
Snow Keep per WP:DEADHORSE 24.151.116.25 (talk) 17:08, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What dead horse? This was the first nom of them all and it's really the poorest article out of them all.—Ryulong (琉竜) 19:12, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The horse was metaphorical and concerning Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass, and it would be easy to see a pattern here, and dismiss the request for deletion out of hand. WP:Duck. But we are not evaluating these wholesale, but indvidually. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:43, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The pattern was arguably formed after this point, so the horse was still alive when this started. It's only when people began going "keep bad faith nom" has the horse died.—Ryulong (琉竜) 20:11, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should concentrate on 'fixing the problem [assuming there is one] and not fixing the blame.' Recriminations are not helpful. However, in the future, if the article should stand, maybe the dissenters need to reevaluate their respect of WP:Consensus. Trying to tilting at windmills and pitch these articles down the well and into the memory hole may not be the best course. But that is something I leave to the individual editors' conscience. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:52, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Mild keep Not the best article out of the bunch, but it is a useful psychological and analytical concept. Or it could be kept and merged with School of hard knocks. Deleting this is out of the question. It goes well beyond definitions, and is a useful concept that may be of interest to readers. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:43, 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) 13:36, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Perhaps the nom is learning the hard way nominating articles for deletion without good reason in the cause of battling another editor is not going to work. Trouts to nom, expression is idiomatic, something we should properly cover, so DICDEF doesn't apply. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:15, 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.