Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shoehorning

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

From Wikipedia's deletion policy page, reason #7: "Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed" In addition to this, topic is not notable enough to warrant a page. Heilige Krieger (talk) 17:03, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but tweak to fit more general definition found here.[1], [2] Very common term used beyond psychics. —Мандичка^YO 😜 17:46, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete would seem to fall foul of WP:NEO, has only a single source. Possibly this topic could be covered better within a general article on psychics or con artists? 18:16, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
- Huh? I listed two sources above. And as I said, it is not only a reference to psychics and con artists. —Мандичка^YO 😜 18:26, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak delete~~Redirect to Shoehorn#Turn of phrase - I disagree that the topic is not notable. However, I agree that the page as currently constructed is too focused on applying the term to the paranormal when it is a general term which has been applied to many other contexts (such as business, ^[1] education,^[2] lingusitics,^[3] and others). However, Wikpedia is not a dictionary and I can't imagine the article being much more than a dictionary definition and perhaps an unmaintainable list of examples from various fields and contexts. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 20:20, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Doz, Yves; Santos, Jose; Williamson, Peter (2001). From Global to Metanational: How Companies Win in the Knowledge Economy. Harvard Business Press. pp. 85–114. ISBN 9780875848709. Retrieved 8 November 2015.
^ Goldstein, Lisa (July 16, 2015). Using Developmentally Appropriate Practices to Teach the Common Core: Grades PreK–3. Routledge. ISBN 9781317743620. Retrieved 8 November 2015.
^ Harris, Amanda; Thieberger, Nick; Barwick, Linda (October 2, 2015). Research, Records and Responsibility: Ten years of PARADISEC. Sydney University Press. pp. 115–132. ISBN 9781743324431. Retrieved 8 November 2015.

- Christ on a cracker. If a topic is notable, it's not fit for deletion. The article's current state has nothing to do with this discussion. WP:DEL-REASON —Мандичка^YO 😜 20:52, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I didn't say the article's current state has anything to do with if it should be deleted or not. I said that any possible article on this topic would be nothing more than a dictionary definition and thereby violate Wikipedia is not a dictionary, which is a long-established policy. Notability isn't the only deletion criteria. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 21:04, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect After reading the discussion above, I have changed my mind on the article's topic's notability, but still feel that it does not warrant a page of its own.Heilige Krieger (talk) 08:29, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per above; as per WP:NOTDIC, it doesn't need a standalone article. The larger article with the photograph gives helpful context for readers who may not have had occasion to use a shoehorn. --Djembayz (talk) 12:26, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]