Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teething troubles (figurative)

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 soft redirect to wikt:teething troubles. Swarm ♠ 19:36, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Teething troubles (figurative)

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

Fails WP:NOTDIC, only content is a definition of the term. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:47, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A fair number of articles link to this page. Please suggest an alternative way to handle these links. Biscuittin (talk) 22:08, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Use wikt:teething troubles and WP:PIPE it the same way you would any Wikipedia link. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:20, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Wiktionary. This is very unlikely to grow beyond the dictionary definition. Daß Wölf (talk) 02:39, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:39, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:39, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Soft redirect to wiktionary:Teething troubles, which is more suited than this article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:40, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Wouldn't it make more sense for Teething troubles to be soft redirected to Wiktionary rather than this implausible search term? -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:46, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That term can be soft redirected as well, but I don't mind keeping a soft redirect containing "figurative" to catch hits. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:49, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What hits are you referring to? I don't see how this would generate hits at all, especially due to the disambiguator "figurative". Sure, it might be "figurative" but that's what an idiom is... It begs the question: why would we have soft redirects for idioms that have figurative definitions? I'm not following the logic here. See also Template:Wiktionary redirect which states: "Do not place it on every possible word. It is only for dictionary definitions and which, due to previous re-creations, are likely to be re-created." I don't see this being recreated in any fashion. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:55, 7 August 2015 (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.