Talk:Chicken Licken
Add topicEncyclopedic content. Unless we find a citation where this is used as a generic term ("don't be such a chicken licken"), I suggest we delete it. Otherwise, it sets the precedent that every fictional (and real) character gets their name listed in the dictionary. Allan 18:53, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
I'd vote this is a special case worth keeping, not just the run of the mill cartoon character.--Richardb 12:37, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
RFD 2013
[edit]
The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process.
It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.
rfd with current definition "A fictional character in the children's story Chicken Licken, a hen, in some versions the main character." Of course, if it can be proved to be idiomatic, it'd be a keeper. -WF
- Delete. Equinox ◑ 16:19, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
- Wikipedia has a section on the idiomaticity of this name. Is it accurate? If so, the definition can be updated accordingly and references to the character moved to the etymology section. — Ungoliant (Falai) 16:24, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
- Chicken Little has "one who panics at the slightest provocation" Siuenti (talk) 22:34, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 04:06, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
- Why was this deleted? It was on my watchlist, so I'm pretty sure I added some cites attesting idiomatic usage. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 21:45, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
- I did indeed add cites to the entry. DAVilla has restored them here. Why would you delete something without first checking to see if it's been cited? -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 22:00, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
- This is not an RFV, but nevertheless you are right it should not have been deleted, but not because of the cites. --WikiTiki89 22:01, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
- The cites are what establish the idiomatic usage of Henny Penny. This idiomatic sense is what merits inclusion under CFI, and thus the cites confirming it are the reason the entry itself shouldn't have been deleted (the original contested sense is another matter, but one needn't throw the baby out with the bathwater). -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 22:37, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
- The sense in question was neither RFD'd nor RFV'd. It's existence is why the page was not deleted, not because of the cites. I did not look at the cites and probably won't unless it is RFV'd. --WikiTiki89 22:40, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
- TS didn't just delete the nominated sense, he deleted the entire entry, which included both the nominated sense and a second, idiomatic sense. A bad call was made here. The deleting admin should've ensured there weren't any readily apparent grounds for keeping the entry before going ahead and deleting it (as opposed to a single sense contained within said entry).
- And there's no reason that citations shouldn't be taken into consideration in RfD discussions. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 23:14, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
- TS didn't realize a new sense was added to the page. He made a mistake and I fixed it. What more do you want? --WikiTiki89 23:18, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
- I feel a need to stress the importance of checking for things that would warrant retaining an entry before deleting it in the hope of preventing similar occurrences in the future. That's all. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 23:43, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
- Well maybe you should have also felt a need to comment here when you added a new sense to an entry that was nominated for RFD. --WikiTiki89 23:53, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
- Now you are just being argumentative and uncivil. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 00:51, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
- I admit I could have phrased that in a friendlier way, but I wasn't being argumentative. When people are closing RFD discussions in bulk, they usually only read what's in the discussion and don't spend too much time looking at the entry itself. You can't expect an RFD'd entry that has no keep votes to not be deleted. --WikiTiki89 00:54, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
- Now you are just being argumentative and uncivil. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 00:51, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
- Well maybe you should have also felt a need to comment here when you added a new sense to an entry that was nominated for RFD. --WikiTiki89 23:53, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
- I feel a need to stress the importance of checking for things that would warrant retaining an entry before deleting it in the hope of preventing similar occurrences in the future. That's all. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 23:43, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
- TS didn't realize a new sense was added to the page. He made a mistake and I fixed it. What more do you want? --WikiTiki89 23:18, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
- The sense in question was neither RFD'd nor RFV'd. It's existence is why the page was not deleted, not because of the cites. I did not look at the cites and probably won't unless it is RFV'd. --WikiTiki89 22:40, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
- The cites are what establish the idiomatic usage of Henny Penny. This idiomatic sense is what merits inclusion under CFI, and thus the cites confirming it are the reason the entry itself shouldn't have been deleted (the original contested sense is another matter, but one needn't throw the baby out with the bathwater). -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 22:37, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
- This is not an RFV, but nevertheless you are right it should not have been deleted, but not because of the cites. --WikiTiki89 22:01, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
- I did indeed add cites to the entry. DAVilla has restored them here. Why would you delete something without first checking to see if it's been cited? -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 22:00, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
- Why was this deleted? It was on my watchlist, so I'm pretty sure I added some cites attesting idiomatic usage. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 21:45, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
- I have restored Henny Penny since the RFD'd definition was not the only one on the page. For the others below, that was not the case. --WikiTiki89 22:01, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
- We should not ever delete any accurate quotations. If the entry or a sense is deleted, any quotations should go to the citations page unless they can be redeployed to other senses in the entry or in a closely related entry (or citations page. The labor involved in finding and formatting citations should not be discarded. DCDuring TALK 00:59, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
- You are correct about that. --WikiTiki89 01:03, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
- I’m sorry for my mistake. Please don’t edit an RFDed sense until someone closes the discussion. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 13:02, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
- You are correct about that. --WikiTiki89 01:03, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
- We should not ever delete any accurate quotations. If the entry or a sense is deleted, any quotations should go to the citations page unless they can be redeployed to other senses in the entry or in a closely related entry (or citations page. The labor involved in finding and formatting citations should not be discarded. DCDuring TALK 00:59, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
rfd under current definition. If a definition like that of Big Bad Wolf can be added, it should be cool. -WF
- Delete as it stands (defined as "a fictional character..."). The stuff on the citations page might support a generic sense, a type of person etc., but I'm not too hopeful. Equinox ◑ 16:33, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 04:06, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
As above - WF
Deleted. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 04:06, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
I have to say, I don't think there was sufficient consensus for deleting any of these. DAVilla 09:14, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
- After about five months, there were several votes to delete and no votes to keep. Deletion was the appropriate response. - -sche (discuss) 09:38, 8 February 2014 (UTC)