Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The quick and the dead

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:20, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The quick and the dead

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

The article consists of a dictionary definition, an etymology, and some mentions of its usage, pretty much all of which is original research. If there's any indication that this even counts as a standard phrase, it would do better as a Wiktionary entry. TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 14:40, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete Original research --Altenmann >talk 16:06, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Christianity. Shellwood (talk) 16:15, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as TNT of original research, but this is a potentially notable subject. The phrase gets a lot of coverage in research about the Book of Common Prayer and its language (eg [1]). I'm planning out an article called "Language in the Book of Common Prayer" (it will be largely framed by an OUP book of the same name by Stella Brook and OUP's Shakespeare's Common Prayers by Daniel Swift). This might be a good redirect to that article when the time comes. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:10, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, of all the idioms currently up for AfD, this one has a long history in English language culture. It's even got itself into philosophy of literature[2], as well as of course featuring in discussions such as [3] (a blog, but a blog by acknowledged experts, Patricia T. O'Conner and Stewart Kellerman). It goes way beyond dictionary-matter, and is socially significant enough to land firmly in an encyclopedia. If we're not careful, we'll have to bud out a sub-article list or disambig on usage of the phrase for books, academic articles, films, poems and music. Elemimele (talk) 17:39, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Elemimele, a simple reading of the article, and a WP:BEFORE search. Bearian (talk) 06:57, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the reliable sources identified in this discussion such as academic journals, and books imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:13, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Appears to be approaching a consensus that this is a notable topic, but that the current article is filled with original research. A little more participation might make clear whether this is the case.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 14:48, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as with this nominator's other items recently at AfD, this is a topic that is certainly notable and not remotely a WP:DICDEF or WP:OR, as shown by sources out there in the world, which is the criterion. While the article looks poorly cited, it actually cites the King James Bible, Shakespeare, and the Prayer Book, somewhere between implicitly and explicitly (mainly without blue-numbered refs): but again, that isn't the AfD criterion. I'll have a go at tidying the article and citing it a bit better, as it deserves. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:54, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've added an image, a section on the idiom's use in fiction, and a lot of citations. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:10, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY. Procyon117 (talk) 17:37, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This archaic idiom is definitely encyclopedic and it's also notable. As for the referencing, Wikipedia allows the use of biblical sources so I don't see a problem there.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:50, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Would have voted delete per WP:TNT, but Chiswick Chap has massively improved the article. Waddles 🗩 🖉 18:57, 2 December 2024 (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.