Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/What's done is done (2nd nomination)

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. (non-admin closure) ––FormalDude talk 05:38, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What's done is done

[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)

Just a definition of an idiom documenting its use. Previous nomination from 2011 made arguments that it's a "notable phrase," but all sources talk about is the history and usage. WP:NOTDICT explicitly says a dictionary entry is primarily about a word, an idiom, or a term and its meanings, usage and history. This does not seem to be a corner case where the phrase itself is an encyclopedic subject, so it fails WP:NOTDICT. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 18:16, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 18:16, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 18:16, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I understand what the nom is saying, and disagree that WP:NOTDICT applies here. Appropriate sourcing already present in article, no changes needed. Jclemens (talk) 18:22, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Per WP:WORDISSUBJECT (a subsection of NOTDICT), a phrase may be encyclopedic if it has been the subject of sufficient treatment to establish notability and satisfy other relevant policies. I don't think at present this article reflects sufficient sources to verify that, but given the connection to Shakespeare, I think it is entirely possible that such sources exist. Cnilep (talk) 01:56, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think just being a phrase in Shakespeare that's still used isn't enough to warrant a stand alone article. Shakespeare popularized lots of phrases and I doubt there's merit for creating articles for all of them. There's a little more detail on the origin of the phrase in the Wikipedia entry than the Wiktionary entry but not enough to meet WP:WORDISSUBJECT unless adequate sources are found (couldn't find any in my WP:BEFORE). Qwaiiplayer (talk) 02:52, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "What's done is done". There was a previous nomination and so we don't need this one too. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:26, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not a lot has changed since this was nominated in 2011, and most people agreed that the article was sufficiently sourced back then. --Coolperson177 (talk) 23:54, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per consensus at the first AFD. "What's done is done".4meter4 (talk) 04:35, 21 September 2021 (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.