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 Soft redirect to wiktionary. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:55, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Know-it-all[edit]

Know-it-all (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

WP:NOTDICTIONARY. This article is only a dicdef and the term is more fit for Wiktionary. The AfD 10 years ago resulted in zero improvement. Should simply be deleted, then redirected to the disambiguation page (which should be moved to Know-It-All). _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 19:43, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 19:43, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Soft redirect to wikt:know-it-all. Simple as that. ミラP 21:05, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• My reading of the 2009 AfD is consensus that the article has potential, based on earlier versions that were not mere dictionary definitions. I notice, though, that those versions assert that know-it-all is partially a synonym for smart aleck and partially for polymath. As Smart aleck (disambiguation) and Polymath currently exist as separate articles, keeping this title seems to violate the spirit of NOTDICT. In its current state the article is about the word as a word. Unlike, say, thou, however, there is no evidence that the word know-it-all as such has social or historical notability. There are some works called "Know it all" (eg. Jacobs 2005, Chakrabarti et al. 2008), but none of them are about the word nor the type of person the word refers to. Therefore, I would delete per WP:WORDISSUBJECT and WP:GNG. Cnilep (talk) 02:40, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Addendum: Given the number of incoming links from fictional characters such as Cliff Clavin and Oscar Martinez (The Office), a soft redirect is appropriate, as Miraclepine suggests. Cnilep (talk) 02:45, 28 November 2019 (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.