Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fresh start

:{{la|Fresh start}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Fresh_start Stats])

:({{Find sources|Fresh start}})

Disputed PROD, reason was " A potentially pleasant embryo essay or dictionary definition, but there is nothing notable about it. However pleasant it may be it is not material for an encyclopaedia." Since the PROD the article has been expanded into a well referenced essay/Dicdef, but it is not notable and has no place here. Wiktionary maybe, Wikipedia, no Fiddle Faddle 22:15, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

:Oppose. Article is under construction. Topic is notable, because I was able to find plenty of sources from different individual parties. Dictionaries would not be able to cover what Wikipedia can. --Mr. Guye (talk) 22:25, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

:*That you can find sources does not guarantee it a place in Wikipedia. The existence of references is not the same as notability. We require notability first and foremost and then verification of that notability in reliable sources. Whether the article is under construction or not, this topic is not notable now and will not be notable when you have finished. This is a dicdef and an essay. Fiddle Faddle 22:34, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

::Merriam-Webster doesn't have it, yet I am sure they are aware of its existence. What does that tell you? Mr. Guye (talk) 22:43, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

::*It tells me that it is not even worth defining Fiddle Faddle 22:48, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

::And how is this not notable? I am sure many people have heard of it anyways. Mr. Guye (talk) 22:44, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

::*Please read WP:GNG. That one has heard of something does not make it notable. Fiddle Faddle 22:48, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

::Exactly which one does it allegedly fail? Mr. Guye (talk) 22:54, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

:::Because I already read them and it passes them all.Mr. Guye (talk) 22:57, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

::Plus, even if it is just a dicdef, why can't the article exist for the concept? Mr. Guye (talk) 23:00, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• Delete I agree with the nom. Obviously the term "fresh start" is common and well known, but Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The article simply defines the term with no notable substance. Scarlettail (talk) 23:07, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

:But what about the concept! Sure, a dictionary can just define a concept, but it can't go into detail or provide multiple examples of the concept. It does not allow someone to completely comprehend the concept. Mr. Guye (talk) 23:24, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NOTDICT. ansh666 05:36, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:56, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
• Comment, It's also a [http://www.freshstartweb.org.uk/ charity] in Scotland... and don't forget the cows. (But you might also need to consider New Deal?) Martinevans123 (talk) 21:59, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
• Yep, DICDEF. Delete. Drmies (talk) 01:28, 30 March 2014 (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.