Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/What's done is done

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 keep. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:22, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

What's done is done

What's done is done (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

This article was proposed to be deleted. I just thoguht I might be better to include the whole community for opinions, incase the issue is with the articles' current situation, not with the concept itself.--Coin945 (talk) 15:20, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• Keep I think this saying deserves inclusion in Wikipedia. It is a common phrase and i bet you have all used/heard it at least once. The stub provides information on the origin (Macbeth) and provides enough information to permit it's expansion by other editors. ~ benzband (talk) 17:55, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• Keep The article does correctly give the information about this expression, which some people might be interested in. I think it passes existing WP standards, although not the original ideal of an encyclopedia. BigJim707 (talk) 18:47, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
• Keep. This is a notable phrase, just from common experience, and it doesn't really need more citations (WP:BLUE). I think that as a common phrase it's good to have a little bit on origins/meaning. Millermk90 (talk) 20:16, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
• Delete because WP:NOTDICDEF. I enjoy reading dictionaries, but Wiktionary and Wikipedia are separate projects. This entry, with its meaning and etymology, belongs over there. PhnomPencil ^{talk contribs} 02:33, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
• Note

1. There is no changing something; it's finished or final. For example, I forgot to include my dividend income in my tax return but what's done is done—I've already mailed the form. This expression uses done in the sense of “ended” or “settled,” a usage dating from the first half of the 1400s. (also in [1])
2. [2]
3. This phrase and others like it find their way in many languages and many cultures. When Queen Esther finds out that the king had already signed the documents for the destruction of the Jewish people, she is realistic in that there is nothing one can do regarding what has been done, but you can still try to do something to divert the consequences (Esther 8:8). Shakespeare had the same idea when he wrote “Things without all remedy should be without regard. What's done is done” (Shakespeare Macbeth III. ii. 12).
4. [3]
5. [4]
6. In particular, Lady Macbeth's 'what's done, is done' suggests an eerie connection with the opening of Macbeth's soliloquy in Act 1 scene 7, in which he contemplates Duncan's murder: 'If it were done when 'tis done, then 'twere well / It .

--Coin945 (talk) 10:18, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

• According to WP:NOTDIC, a dictionary definition is "primarily about a word, an idiom or a term and its meanings, usage and history." (emphasis mine) So what we have here is the one-sentence lead about usage, a section on the meaning, a section on the history, and the creator has linked some more usage and definitions above. You see where I'm going with this? Sorry, but delete. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 14:28, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

• Really? Dictionary definitions talk about a word/term/phrase's history? I personally find that hard to believe. That sounds more like an etymology website (which in itself can warrant an encyclopedic article - usage, history, meaning etc.).--Coin945 (talk) 14:43, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

• Think about it this way. If you're trying to write an article about a word or term (say, "what's up"), what would you write about? There really are only so many thing you can say, and having an etymology is evidence that the article is just explaining the word. Now, for articles like truthiness, it seems that would be a dictionary def also. However, it those cases the word or idea itself has been covered by third-party sources. To complete that analogy, I don't know of many New York Times columns written about the social impact of the term "what's up". Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 14:58, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Thoughts on the article now?--Coin945 (talk) 16:50, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

• Keep sufficient encyclopedic information, as will i think be the case for many such phrases. With material like this, the functions of an encyclopedia and a dictionary overlap. DGG ( talk ) 06:22, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

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.