Talk:Flying glass
Add topic | This article was nominated for deletion on 18 September 2017. The result of the discussion was keep. |
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
.jpg){kind=small}
Nuclear weaponry
[edit]This page should mention how this concept is related to nuclear warfare and also the "Duck and Cover" concept.63.152.86.28 (talk) 04:26, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
- Really? There's plenty of ways to cause glass to go flying than setting off a nuke. Really I'd think it one of my lesser concerns in the case of an all out nuclear attack... 51.7.49.61 (talk) 21:43, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
Two words in conjunction
[edit]The discussion of whether Flying glass is over. It will stay. A discussion of articles that discuss two words in conjunction generally is still worthwhile.
Let's assume arguendo that all of the single words in the English language have articles. Now we are faced with discussions of the billions of word pairs. Take for example White room. There is a legitimate article that discusses it. There is also one for green room. Blue room and red room have several. It's only a matter of time before we see proposals for pink room (there are Google hits on this one), and purple room. These last two are self-evident: restaurant and hotel rooms with a particular color scheme.
The same self-evidence principle applies to word pairs including flying glass, broken glass, and shattered glass. At some point, these word pairs will no longer deserve an article. We can expect word triplets eventually. My suggestion is that we apply a test to word pairs: only when the pair describes something that is not self-evident should it be included. This would eliminate flying glass and pink room, but would include green room and white room. Rhadow (talk) 13:26, 3 October 2017 (UTC)