Talk:accordion player

Deletion discussion

The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process.

It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.

---

accordion player

Seems SOP to me, one can be a player of anything really. And accordionist is a perfectly cromulent word. WurdSnatcher (talk) 01:15, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Note: I have found three cites for accordion-player. I still think this page can go, but I suppose per WT:COALMINE it shouldn't be? WurdSnatcher (talk)

If there was a prize for the most useless user page, I think you would win it. Donnanz (talk) 16:51, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

You think?! I better win it, I've worked hard to make my userpage useless. Just point me at whoever has a more useless user page. As God is my witness, I'll find a use for it! WurdSnatcher (talk)

Uh-huh. The result is a damp squib, and the page has never been changed since creation. At least it keeps your user name "out of the red". Donnanz (talk) 07:31, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

No, because accordion-player doesn't meet CFI (if accordion player doesn't without invoking COALMINE). (Anyway, I don't think COALMINE means to include a hyphenated form as what it calls a "single-word spelling".)​—msh210℠ (talk) 21:09, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

It seems so to me too, but is it a profession? I believe we have claimed that being the name of a profession is sufficient, as in the case of tennis player. See Talk:tennis player. DCDuring TALK 01:57, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but I don't think so: street performers can be accordion players (and another)), a "piano player" can become an "accordion player" just by picking one up; Clifton Chenier's father seems to be universally described as an "amateur accordion player" (and he's not the only one by any means). WurdSnatcher (talk) 13:44, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Few more: a boy can be an accordion player, morris dancers are accompanied by one (as a folk dance, probably very rarely a pro); this guy is professionally a vaudeville performer and music teacher, but it is also noted was known as an accordion player, suggesting he was not a professional at it. This contest is open to "both amateur and professional" accordion players. WurdSnatcher (talk) 14:20, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

• I feel that as a synonym it should be kept. It was me who created the entry actually. Donnanz (talk) 11:49, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Would you feel the same way about any musical instrument player? guitar player, cithara player, conch player are all just as (un)reasonable to me, IMHO. WurdSnatcher (talk) 13:44, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
    • So person who plays the accordion should be kept as well then? Delete. Renard Migrant (talk) 14:02, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
      • Also, I don't think that tennis player meets the tennis player test, google books:"talented tennis player" has stuff like "Rod Jones, who played defensive back for the Tampa Bay Buccaneers and the Cincinnati Bengals, was a talented tennis player." The Buccaneers and the Bengals are NFL teams for those who don't know. Renard Migrant (talk) 14:04, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
        • It is a silly test. See Talk:basketball player. The phrase "keen basketball player" (always an amateur) proves that a "basketball player" need not be a professional. Equinox ◑ 14:22, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
• Delete. Why not add player of accоrdion, player of accоrdions, player of the accоrdion, guy who plays the accоrdion, guy who plays accоrdion, etc. then? They are synonyms too. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 16:00, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
• Delete as per nomination. Otherwise we need to add 'player of X' for every musical instrument. Yurivict (talk) 04:59, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
• Yes, Delete. SemperBlotto (talk) 07:04, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
• Strongest possible keep: Per Donnanz, and per likely translation target. Purplebackpack89 13:16, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Why not use accordionist as a translation target? WurdSnatcher (talk) 14:28, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
    • That was the intention in the first place. Donnanz (talk) 23:29, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
      • So you're for deletion then? Renard Migrant (talk) 14:38, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
        • The question isn't worth answering. I haven't been brainwashed. Donnanz (talk) 07:31, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
• Delete - adds no value to the project. --Hekaheka (talk) 17:10, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
• Abstain. I would keep it if translation target rationale applied. But since accordionist is similarly common as accordion player per accordionist, accordion player at Google Ngram Viewer, and since accordionist is even more common there around 2000, accordionist is perfectly good translation target. The tennis player does seem to meet the translation target rationale, per tennis player, tennist at Google Ngram Viewer. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:09, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Delete. I get that many languages have a one-word equivalent of this, but that isn't a keep argument for me. Languages like Finnish and Hungarian can have very long words for things that we'd never consider creating English entries for. Equinox ◑ 02:26, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Amen. "Translation target" is not a criterion for inclusion.​—msh210℠ (talk) 21:09, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Delete or perhaps soft redirect using {{no entry}} like so to accordionist, and put translations there. If we had a collocations namespace (weigh in if you think we should or shouldn't have one), we could mention this as a collocation of accordion (and perhaps also player). - -sche (discuss) 03:00, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

There is, in effect, already a redirect. If we can't have two-word synonyms there is something fundamentally wrong with Wiktionary. Does anyone know whether the silent majority of users look at or for entries like this? Do you use cookies for successful searches? Donnanz (talk) 09:13, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I would not expect to encounter a two-word entry for something as simple as this. If I didn't understand "accordion player", I would check the components separately. If I wanted to know how one says "accordion player" in French, I would learn that "accordion" is "accordéon (m)" and player is "joueur (m)" or "joueuse (f)" and then I would just deduce that the answer to my quest is "joueur d'accordéon" or "joueuse d'accordéon"- bingo! Also, the potentially huge number of this sort of entries makes them pointless as translation targets, because our limited supply of editors is not going to have the time to fill in all the translations. --Hekaheka (talk) 14:46, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

And this entry doesn't take up a helluva lotta space, under 250 bytes. Donnanz (talk) 09:38, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

If you're actually worried about disk space, that's not remotely accurate; I would estimate between rounding up to block sizes and a plethora of indexes, that we're looking at least 64K. Much of which wouldn't change if it was merely deleted. Disk space is just not a factor in Wiktionary deletions.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:44, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

• Delete SOP.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:44, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
• Reference added. Donnanz (talk) 22:44, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
• Delete. The practice of including phrase that describe professions without regard to the SoP nature of the phrase should be abandoned and the argument given no weight in RfD discussions. It was never policy. DCDuring TALK 14:12, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
• Keep. I changed my mind from abstain. First of all, one lemming has it: oxforddictionaries.com[1]. Second, another lemming has something similar: Collins has "percussion player"[2] in a minimal entry directing the reader to "percussionist". Even minimal entry using {{synonym of}}, having no synonyms and no translation section, would add value to the user by directing them to accordionist for translation. Note that this entry is a noun-noun compound, many of which are keen on appearing as closed compounds (space-less compounds), which we keep; "player of accоrdion" does not have a chance of appearing as *"playerofaccоrdion". On one last note, I found occurrences of "accordion-player" with a hyphen, although search is hard, which suggests to me this is thought of as a single concept. All of this is not strongly compelling, but I think our users are better off with our having this entry. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:39, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
• Delete - this is as SoP as it is possible to be, and one lemming does not a Disney documentary make. Keith the Koala (talk) 20:55, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
• Note: I have found three cites for accordion-player. I still think this page can go, but I suppose per WT:COALMINE it shouldn't? WurdSnatcher (talk)

  @WurdSnatcher: COALMINE uses the phrase "single word spelling that already meets CFI". Many people do not consider hyphenated compounds ("coal-mine") to be single words, unlike closed compounds ("coalmine"). I remember no RFD kept via COALMINE in conjunction with a hyphenated form. COALMINE would be used with accordionplayer if it existed; can you attest that one? If you want to vote delete yet abide by the usual interpretation of COALMINE, you can vote delete AFAICS. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:43, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

  Okay then I'm still on delete. I found fluteplayer but that's it as far as one-word -player terms go. WurdSnatcher (talk) 11:55, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

lol bad faith. Well done! Equinox ◑ 05:48, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

• I was tempted to RFD a couple of WurdSnatcher's recent entries, tea chest bass and tea chest bassist, but so far I'm using the maxim "don't do unto others as they do unto you". I wondered whether a double standard was being employed. Donnanz (talk) 13:53, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
• Delete. So clearly sum of parts.Sonofcawdrey (talk) 04:24, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
• Delete as SOP.​—msh210℠ (talk) 21:09, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Deleted. bd2412 T 14:25, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

• What a shame. Donnanz (talk) 23:10, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
• This entry was blatantly replaced by accordion-player, by guess who - Wurdsnatcher. Donnanz (talk) 12:58, 6 February 2016 (UTC)