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. LFaraone 00:05, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Idiom dictionary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

"Idiom dictionary" is a redundant concept and needs no explanation. While Cambridge for instance publishes a dictionary of idioms, there is little reason to devote an article to stating that an idiom dictionary is a dictionary containing idioms. Note that most of the article concerns itself with explaining what idiom is. Actually, note that most of the article consists of 'See also' links. Drmies (talk) 23:35, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete lack of references and per above.--TV Man 13 23:46, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• This !vote has been struck as coming from a sockpuppet account. See this SPI. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:21, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments. Do note this 2007 revision posted in the previous AfD, which has superior wording, far less SeeAlso, and lists 1 actual example. The previous AfD also mentions the abundance of GoogleBooks references, which, at a very quick glance, seem to indicate that the topic of "Idiom dictionaries" might actually be important in fields related to cognitive linguistics. eg.1, eg.2. Hope that helps. –Quiddity (talk) 00:05, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At best, I still think this could be merged into a more encompassing article.--TV Man 13 00:15, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep per the 2012 AfD, which found the concept notable, and per WP:NOTDIC. In particular, "One perennial source of confusion is that a stub encyclopedia article looks very much like a stub dictionary entry, and stubs are often poorly written." The article is a stub. I have no strong objection to merging it somewhere, except that it would seem a somewhat uneasy fit at Idiom. Dictionary#Types might be OK. Cnilep (talk) 01:51, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Waste not, want not. Warden (talk) 13:34, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • In what way does that address whether or not this article should be kept? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:22, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • See gnome. Warden (talk) 13:17, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • "A nod is as good as a wink"? Cnilep (talk) 20:34, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Update The article has been expanded and improved. It is now "on deck" at DYK where it will be reviewed. Further discussion here seems redundant. Warden (talk) 13:17, 21 May 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.