Talk:Rolling Stones

RfD discussion

The following information passed a request for deletion.

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.

---

Does Wiktionary accept The Rolling Stones? --LaRos 14:43, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

• Who breaks a butterfly upon a wheel? Kappa 15:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - LaRos was Wonderfool. SemperBlotto 17:49, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Yep, understood out of context. Closing per SB. DAVilla 09:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

This is a test:

{{process|rfd-passed|parameter to rfd-passed}} DAVilla 20:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

RFD discussion: November 2017–May 2018

The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process (permalink).

It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.

---

Rolling Stones

How is that dictionary material? --Barytonesis (talk) 16:09, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

I'll admit that the quotation points to a genericized usage, however. --Barytonesis (talk) 16:11, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Then we need an entry for Millard Fillmore because the following is just one of many instances of its use:

Some more:

IOW, IMO, Delete, unless we really do want to become a short-attention-span encyclopedia. DCDuring (talk) 17:27, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

For a really funny list of many more, see this passage in Surfaces and Essences: Analogy as the Fuel and Fire of Thinking, by Douglas Hofstadter and Emmanuel Sander. DCDuring (talk) 17:52, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

We have an entry for Beatles, and a number of other Proper Nouns for people, e.g. Cicero, Homer.-Sonofcawdrey (talk) 01:25, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Agree with the point about the usage example. This kind of "the X of Y" is a standard pattern of English usage that can be used with essentially any proper noun X. Mihia (talk)

Delete for the reason given by Mihia. — SGconlaw (talk) 17:15, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Delete as currently defined (the band). I don't like the "Beatles of the 21st century"-type entries either but we do seem to have a historical consensus of inclusion; I have raised such entries for deletion before and been disagreed with. Equinox ◑ 14:09, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Keep, but alter the definition to cover the genericized use. When something is called the "Rolling Stones" of some field, the relevant point is not that they are a successful and long-lived band, it is that they had that "bad-boy" image, in contrast to the more innocent image of the Beatles. If someone looks up a proper noun like this in the dictionary, as opposed to in an encyclopedia, it is because they want to know what you mean by "the Rolling Stones of voice-over artists." The current definition does not answer that. Kiwima (talk) 03:00, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

I myself am very curious about what might be meant by "the Mussolini of mulligatawny". I don't think a dictionary can or should address that. DCDuring (talk) 21:56, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

By that token we would have to include in the dictionary virtually every proper noun in existence and explain each of their potential attributes or associations. Mihia (talk) 15:01, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Re: "virtually every proper noun in existence": Far from it. A fraction of all proper names has this kind of "the X of Y" usage attested. And we could set a higher threshold for the number of such uses attested, if required, to limit the volume of included items. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:54, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

For standard patterns that are used ad hoc, the issue of attestation is not very relevant. Mihia (talk)

There might be grounds for altering CFI to include such proper names that have attestable derived terms (Homeric, Ciceronian). DCDuring (talk) 21:56, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

I have heard worse ideas. Equinox ◑ 03:27, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Governed by WT:NSE, and thus, up to editor discretion. As for "Millard Fillmore", that is excluded by current CFI: "No individual person should be listed as a sense in any entry whose page title includes both a given name or diminutive and a family name or patronymic." The "X of Y" pattern is a usual construction, sure, but far from every attested proper name has such usage attested, and therefore, the pattern does provide a filter, an element potentially usable in guiding inclusion and exclusion of proper names. Returning back to "Millard Fillmore", google books:"the Millard Fillmore of" finds 24 hits in total but not all independent. By wading through google books:"the Rolling Stones of", I find more relevant usages (and many irrelevant ones). --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:54, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Here's the Rolling Stones of, the Beatles of, the Bee Gees of at the Google Books Ngram Viewer.; "the Bee Gees of" is not found there. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:58, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

• Keep per "the Rolling Stones of" pattern; the pattern serves as a useful filter, preventing an overflood of similar entries: e.g. "the Bee Gees of" is not found above. More notes from me are above. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:44, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Delete per DCD. - -sche (discuss) 23:16, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Deleted. bd2412 T 23:51, 17 May 2018 (UTC)