Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lo and behold

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:12, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

=[[Lo and behold]]=

Interesting etymology, but it's just an expression, not a thing, concept etc. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Kappa 23:11, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete I would say "Transwiki to Wiktionary," but the article's more or less copied from there anyway. --Blackcap | talk 23:15, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually, it was the other way around. --Sn0wflake 23:22, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Oh. Anyway, the point is that it's already at Wiktionary. --Blackcap | talk 00:01, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I do think that the article has potential for expansion. At the moment it is an enhanced dicdef of sorts, but I vote for it to be given more time. --Sn0wflake 23:22, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's had quite a bit of time already, and I can't figure what encyclopedic content might come along. The social impact of the phrase? Has it had an unusually prominent usage in some notable cause or other? I can't think of one, at least not off the top of my head. As Kappa says, it's not a concept, so is lexicographical rather than encyclopedic. -Splashtalk 23:25, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - Snowflake, if you think this has potential, give us a hint as to what? --Doc (?) 23:54, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per Sn0wflake Ryan Norton T | @ | C 00:23, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Dicdef, already fully covered by Wiktionary. TheMadBaron 02:44, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, dicdef (although keeping it might slightly reduce the number of times one is forced to see the spelling "low and behold"). --Angr/User_talk:Angr 05:33, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, dic def of phrase already in Wiktionary. I can't see a way to expand this into an article either. - Mgm|(talk) 08:49, 15 September 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.